Comparison of artificial intelligence and logistic regression models for mortality prediction in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.8 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Intensive Care Medicine Experimental Pub Date : 2025-02-21 DOI:10.1186/s40635-024-00706-8
Yang He, Ning Liu, Jie Yang, Yucai Hong, Hongying Ni, Zhongheng Zhang
{"title":"Comparison of artificial intelligence and logistic regression models for mortality prediction in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Yang He, Ning Liu, Jie Yang, Yucai Hong, Hongying Ni, Zhongheng Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s40635-024-00706-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in predicting the mortality of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has garnered significant attention. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based support for its specific diagnostic performance. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of AI algorithms in predicting ARDS mortality.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive electronic search across Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO databases up to April 28, 2024. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included articles. A bivariate mixed-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis, meta-regression analysis, and tests for heterogeneity were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were included in the analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, and summarized receiver operating characteristic (SROC) of the AI-based model in the validation set were 0.89 (95% CI 0.79-0.95), 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.78), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87), respectively. For the logistic regression (LR) model, the sensitivity, specificity, and SROC were 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82), 0.68 (95% CI 0.60-0.76), and 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84). The AI model demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared to the LR model. Notably, the predictive model performed better in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (SAUC: 0.84 [95% CI 0.80-0.87] vs. 0.81 [95% CI 0.77-0.84]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The AI algorithms showed superior performance in predicting the mortality of ARDS patients and demonstrated strong potential for clinical application. Additionally, we found that for ARDS, a highly heterogeneous condition, the accuracy of the model is influenced by the severity of the disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":13750,"journal":{"name":"Intensive Care Medicine Experimental","volume":"13 1","pages":"23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11845658/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive Care Medicine Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-024-00706-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in predicting the mortality of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has garnered significant attention. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based support for its specific diagnostic performance. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of AI algorithms in predicting ARDS mortality.

Method: We conducted a comprehensive electronic search across Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO databases up to April 28, 2024. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included articles. A bivariate mixed-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis, meta-regression analysis, and tests for heterogeneity were also performed.

Results: Eight studies were included in the analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, and summarized receiver operating characteristic (SROC) of the AI-based model in the validation set were 0.89 (95% CI 0.79-0.95), 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.78), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87), respectively. For the logistic regression (LR) model, the sensitivity, specificity, and SROC were 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82), 0.68 (95% CI 0.60-0.76), and 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84). The AI model demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared to the LR model. Notably, the predictive model performed better in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (SAUC: 0.84 [95% CI 0.80-0.87] vs. 0.81 [95% CI 0.77-0.84]).

Conclusion: The AI algorithms showed superior performance in predicting the mortality of ARDS patients and demonstrated strong potential for clinical application. Additionally, we found that for ARDS, a highly heterogeneous condition, the accuracy of the model is influenced by the severity of the disease.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
2.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Unlocking opportunities to transform patient care: an expert insight on limitations and opportunities in patient monitoring. Renal mitochondria response to sepsis: a sequential biopsy evaluation of experimental porcine model. Comparison of artificial intelligence and logistic regression models for mortality prediction in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Early sepsis recognition: a pilot study using a rapid high-multiplex host-response mRNA diagnostic test. Teicoplanin pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients on extracorporeal organ support: a retrospective analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1