Machine learning for the prediction of diabetes-related amputation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Zhigang Chen, Xinliang Liu, Simeng Li, Zhenheng Wu, Haifen Tan, Fuqian Yu, Dongmei Wang, Yawen Bo
{"title":"Machine learning for the prediction of diabetes-related amputation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.","authors":"Zhigang Chen, Xinliang Liu, Simeng Li, Zhenheng Wu, Haifen Tan, Fuqian Yu, Dongmei Wang, Yawen Bo","doi":"10.1007/s10238-025-01697-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although machine learning is frequently used in medicine for predictive purposes, its accuracy in diabetes-related amputation (DRA) remains unclear. From establishing the database until December 2024, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and the China National Knowledge Index (CNKI). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and Fagan plot analysis were used to assess the overall test performance of machine learning. Moreover, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to search for possible sources of heterogeneity. Finally, sensitivity analysis and Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test were used to evaluate the stability and publication bias, respectively. In the end, seven publications were included in this meta-analysis. The overall pooled diagnostic data were as follows: sensitivity, 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75); specificity, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93); PLR, 3.62 (95% CI 3.36-3.89); NLR, 0.32 (95% CI 0.30-0.35); DOR, 13.55 (95% CI 11.72-15.67). The AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84). The Fagan plot analysis showed that the positive post-test probability is 62% and the negative post-test probability is 7%. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression showed that both the level of bias and the year of publication were sources of heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results after excluding three outlier studies. The Deeks' funnel plot suggests that publication bias has no statistical significance (P > 0.05). In summary, our results suggest the moderate accuracy of machine learning in predicting DRA.</p>","PeriodicalId":10337,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"151"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12065772/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-025-01697-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although machine learning is frequently used in medicine for predictive purposes, its accuracy in diabetes-related amputation (DRA) remains unclear. From establishing the database until December 2024, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and the China National Knowledge Index (CNKI). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and Fagan plot analysis were used to assess the overall test performance of machine learning. Moreover, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to search for possible sources of heterogeneity. Finally, sensitivity analysis and Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test were used to evaluate the stability and publication bias, respectively. In the end, seven publications were included in this meta-analysis. The overall pooled diagnostic data were as follows: sensitivity, 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75); specificity, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93); PLR, 3.62 (95% CI 3.36-3.89); NLR, 0.32 (95% CI 0.30-0.35); DOR, 13.55 (95% CI 11.72-15.67). The AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84). The Fagan plot analysis showed that the positive post-test probability is 62% and the negative post-test probability is 7%. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression showed that both the level of bias and the year of publication were sources of heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results after excluding three outlier studies. The Deeks' funnel plot suggests that publication bias has no statistical significance (P > 0.05). In summary, our results suggest the moderate accuracy of machine learning in predicting DRA.

预测糖尿病相关截肢的机器学习:诊断测试准确性的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
尽管机器学习经常用于医学预测目的,但其在糖尿病相关截肢(DRA)中的准确性尚不清楚。从建立数据库到2024年12月,我们对PubMed、Web of Science (WoS)、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane Library、万方、CNKI等数据库进行了全面检索。采用合并敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比(PLR)、阴性似然比(NLR)、诊断优势比(DOR)、曲线下面积(AUC)和Fagan图分析来评估机器学习的整体测试性能。此外,还进行了亚组分析和元回归,以寻找可能的异质性来源。最后,采用敏感性分析和Deeks漏斗图不对称检验分别评价稳定性和发表偏倚。最后,7篇论文被纳入meta分析。综合诊断数据如下:敏感性0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75);特异性为0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93);Plr, 3.62 (95% ci 3.36-3.89);Nlr为0.32 (95% ci 0.30-0.35);Dor为13.55 (95% ci 11.72-15.67)。AUC为0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84)。Fagan图分析显示阳性后验概率为62%,阴性后验概率为7%。亚组分析和meta回归显示偏倚水平和发表年份是敏感性和特异性异质性的来源。在排除了三个异常研究后,敏感性分析证实了结果的稳健性。Deeks漏斗图显示发表偏倚无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。总之,我们的研究结果表明,机器学习在预测DRA方面具有中等的准确性。
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
Clinical and Experimental Medicine
Clinical and Experimental Medicine 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.20%
发文量
159
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Medicine (CEM) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to be a forum of scientific excellence and information exchange in relation to the basic and clinical features of the following fields: hematology, onco-hematology, oncology, virology, immunology, and rheumatology. The journal publishes reviews and editorials, experimental and preclinical studies, translational research, prospectively designed clinical trials, and epidemiological studies. Papers containing new clinical or experimental data that are likely to contribute to changes in clinical practice or the way in which a disease is thought about will be given priority due to their immediate importance. Case reports will be accepted on an exceptional basis only, and their submission is discouraged. The major criteria for publication are clarity, scientific soundness, and advances in knowledge. In compliance with the overwhelmingly prevailing request by the international scientific community, and with respect for eco-compatibility issues, CEM is now published exclusively online.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信