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
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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

人工智能和逻辑回归模型在急性呼吸窘迫综合征死亡率预测中的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:人工智能(AI)在急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)死亡率预测中的应用已引起广泛关注。然而,目前仍缺乏证据支持其具体的诊断性能。因此,本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估人工智能算法在预测ARDS死亡率方面的有效性。方法:对Web of Science、Embase、PubMed、Scopus和EBSCO数据库进行了全面的电子检索,检索时间截止到2024年4月28日。采用QUADAS-2工具评估纳入文章的偏倚风险。采用双变量混合效应模型进行meta分析。还进行了敏感性分析、meta回归分析和异质性检验。结果:8项研究被纳入分析。验证集中基于人工智能的模型的敏感性、特异性和总结受试者工作特征(SROC)分别为0.89 (95% CI 0.79 ~ 0.95)、0.72 (95% CI 0.65 ~ 0.78)和0.84 (95% CI 0.80 ~ 0.87)。对于logistic回归(LR)模型,敏感性、特异性和SROC分别为0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82)、0.68 (95% CI 0.60-0.76)和0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84)。与LR模型相比,AI模型显示出更高的预测准确性。值得注意的是,该预测模型在中重度ARDS患者中表现更好(SAUC: 0.84 [95% CI 0.80-0.87] vs. 0.81 [95% CI 0.77-0.84])。结论:人工智能算法在ARDS患者死亡率预测方面具有较好的效果,具有较强的临床应用潜力。此外,我们发现对于ARDS(一种高度异质性的疾病),模型的准确性受到疾病严重程度的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信