Diagnostic performance of machine learning models for malignant and non-malignant pleural effusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurately distinguishing malignant pleural effusion (MPE) from non-malignant pleural effusion is clinically important, but the generalisability and methodological quality of machine-learning (ML) models remain uncertain. METHODS: We searched eight databases to 23 April 2026. Diagnostic performance was pooled using random-effects and Reitsma bivariate models, and study quality was assessed using PROBAST+AI. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were included; 17 contributed to the AUC meta-analysis and 14 to the bivariate analysis. The pooled AUC was 0.90 (95 % CI 0.85-0.94; 95 % prediction interval 0.62-0.98), with sensitivity of 0.80 (95 % CI 0.77-0.83) and specificity of 0.87 (95 % CI 0.79-0.92). Only nine studies reported external, temporal or independent validation. Externally validated studies had a lower pooled AUC than studies without external validation (0.83 vs 0.92), with lower specificity observed in the two externally validated studies contributing sensitivity and specificity data. All 42 development assessments had high overall quality concerns, and all 42 model evaluations were judged at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: ML models showed good apparent accuracy for distinguishing MPE from non-MPE, but the evidence was limited by substantial heterogeneity, high risk of bias and scarce external validation. The pooled estimates reflect the average performance of different selected models rather than the expected accuracy of a single clinical test. ML models should be regarded as adjuncts to existing diagnostic pathways until they are confirmed by rigorous multicentre prospective external validation and clinical-impact studies.