SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early and accurate diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its organ involvement is essential. Previous reviews of machine learning (ML) in SLE combined heterogeneous tasks and validation strategies and may have overinterpreted model performance. Objective: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML and deep learning (DL) models for 3 clinically distinct SLE-related tasks: SLE classification or diagnosis, lupus nephritis (LN) diagnosis, and neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) discrimination. We also assessed methodological quality and certainty of evidence. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched from January 2014 to April 2026. Eligible peer-reviewed diagnostic accuracy studies developed or validated ML or DL models for 1 of the 3 prespecified tasks, used an accepted reference standard, and provided data for a 2×2 contingency table. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment were used to pool sensitivity and specificity. We reported 95% prediction intervals (PIs), assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Artificial Intelligence tool (QUADAS-AI; Viknesh Sounderajah [Imperial College London]), and evaluated certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework for diagnostic test accuracy. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included: 17 for SLE classification, 5 for LN diagnosis, and 7 for NPSLE discrimination. In the primary task-stratified analysis, pooled sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94; 95% PI 0.56-0.99), and pooled specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96; 95% PI 0.69-0.99), with low heterogeneity ( Conclusions: ML models showed promising diagnostic accuracy across 3 distinct SLE-related tasks, but wide PIs, limited external validation, and pervasive risk of bias restrict conclusions about real-world generalizability. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized tasks and reference standards, independent external validation, and formal assessment of calibration and clinical utility are required before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.