重症监护病房使用人工智能早期检测败血症:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Xiaomeng Ji, Huasong Huo, Lihua Dong
{"title":"重症监护病房使用人工智能早期检测败血症:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Xiaomeng Ji, Huasong Huo, Lihua Dong","doi":"10.1177/08850666251372499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PurposeThis meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence for detecting sepsis in intensive care unit.MethodsA thorough literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to locate relevant studies published through November 2024. The selected studies specifically examined the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in identifying septicemia. To estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity values, a bivariate random-effects model was employed, with results reported alongside 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic.ResultsOf the 1495 studies initially identified, 16 studies encompassing a total of 159,947 patients, met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. For the internal validation set, the pooled results for sepsis detection showed a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71-0.80), a specificity was of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.89), and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90). In comparison, the external validation set yielded a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65-0.87), a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86), and an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89). Deeks' funnel plot and Egger's test indicated no significant publication bias in both the internal and external validation sets(<i>P</i> = .63,.89).ConclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis indicate that artificial intelligence demonstrates a high diagnostic performance in identifying sepsis and septic shock. However, substantial heterogeneity across studies may impact the robustness of this evidence. Further research using external validation datasets is required to confirm these results and evaluate their applicability in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"8850666251372499"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early Detection of Sepsis Using Artificial Intelligence in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xiaomeng Ji, Huasong Huo, Lihua Dong\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08850666251372499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>PurposeThis meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence for detecting sepsis in intensive care unit.MethodsA thorough literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to locate relevant studies published through November 2024. The selected studies specifically examined the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in identifying septicemia. To estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity values, a bivariate random-effects model was employed, with results reported alongside 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic.ResultsOf the 1495 studies initially identified, 16 studies encompassing a total of 159,947 patients, met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. For the internal validation set, the pooled results for sepsis detection showed a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71-0.80), a specificity was of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.89), and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90). In comparison, the external validation set yielded a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65-0.87), a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86), and an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89). Deeks' funnel plot and Egger's test indicated no significant publication bias in both the internal and external validation sets(<i>P</i> = .63,.89).ConclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis indicate that artificial intelligence demonstrates a high diagnostic performance in identifying sepsis and septic shock. However, substantial heterogeneity across studies may impact the robustness of this evidence. Further research using external validation datasets is required to confirm these results and evaluate their applicability in clinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"8850666251372499\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666251372499\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666251372499","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本荟萃分析旨在评估人工智能在重症监护病房脓毒症检测中的诊断性能。方法利用PubMed、Embase、Web of Science等数据库进行全面的文献检索,检索截止到2024年11月发表的相关研究。所选的研究专门检查了人工智能在识别败血症方面的诊断准确性。为了估计合并的敏感性和特异性值,采用了双变量随机效应模型,结果以95%的置信区间报告。使用I2统计量评估各研究的异质性。在最初确定的1495项研究中,16项研究(共159947例患者)符合本荟萃分析的纳入标准。对于内部验证集,脓毒症检测的合并结果显示敏感性为0.76 (95% CI: 0.71-0.80),特异性为0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.89),曲线下面积(AUC)为0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90)。相比之下,外部验证集的灵敏度为0.78 (95% CI: 0.65-0.87),特异性为0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86), AUC为0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89)。Deeks' s漏斗图和Egger's检验显示,内部和外部验证集均无显著的发表偏倚(P = 0.63, 0.89)。结论本荟萃分析结果表明,人工智能在识别败血症和感染性休克方面表现出较高的诊断性能。然而,研究之间的实质性异质性可能会影响该证据的稳健性。需要使用外部验证数据集的进一步研究来确认这些结果并评估其在临床环境中的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Early Detection of Sepsis Using Artificial Intelligence in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PurposeThis meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence for detecting sepsis in intensive care unit.MethodsA thorough literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to locate relevant studies published through November 2024. The selected studies specifically examined the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in identifying septicemia. To estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity values, a bivariate random-effects model was employed, with results reported alongside 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic.ResultsOf the 1495 studies initially identified, 16 studies encompassing a total of 159,947 patients, met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. For the internal validation set, the pooled results for sepsis detection showed a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71-0.80), a specificity was of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.89), and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90). In comparison, the external validation set yielded a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65-0.87), a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86), and an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89). Deeks' funnel plot and Egger's test indicated no significant publication bias in both the internal and external validation sets(P = .63,.89).ConclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis indicate that artificial intelligence demonstrates a high diagnostic performance in identifying sepsis and septic shock. However, substantial heterogeneity across studies may impact the robustness of this evidence. Further research using external validation datasets is required to confirm these results and evaluate their applicability in clinical settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JIC) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal offering medical and surgical clinicians in adult and pediatric intensive care state-of-the-art, broad-based analytic reviews and updates, original articles, reports of large clinical series, techniques and procedures, topic-specific electronic resources, book reviews, and editorials on all aspects of intensive/critical/coronary care.
×
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