SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

11 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Diagnostic performance of machine learning models versus established risk stratification for intracranial aneurysm rupture: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) models have been proposed to improve the discrimination of intracranial aneurysm rupture status beyond established clinical risk stratification tools. However, reported performance is heterogeneous and the relative contribution of model architecture and feature dominance remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis of studies evaluating ML models for intracranial aneurysm rupture discrimination. PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were searched to February 2026. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model, with summary receiver operating characteristic curves generated across training, internal testing and external validation datasets. Models were compared with regression-based approaches and Population, Hypertension, Age, Size of aneurysm, Earlier subarachnoid haemorrhage, Site of aneurysm (PHASES) scores. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses explored associations between algorithm family and feature domain. RESULTS: Sixty-two retrospective cohorts (29 709 patients 209 models) met the inclusion criteria. In training datasets, pooled sensitivity and specificity for ML were 0.81 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.85) and 0.83 (0.80-0.86), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.878, exceeding PHASES (AUC 0.667). In testing datasets, ML retained higher discrimination (AUC 0.837) than regression models (0.806) and PHASES (0.646). In external validation, sensitivity was preserved (0.82), but specificity declined (0.66). Deep learning demonstrated the highest AUCs (training and testing). Incorporation of haemodynamic or radiomic features improved pooled discrimination relative to morphology alone. Evidence of small-study effects and mostly unclear Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool ratings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: ML approaches demonstrate higher pooled discrimination for aneurysm rupture status than conventional risk scores in retrospective datasets, but reduced external validation specificity and heterogeneity limit confidence for clinical translation. Prospective, externally validated, calibrated models are required before integration into routine cerebrovascular risk stratification.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Future promise, current clinical ambiguity: a systematic review of machine learning algorithm outputs predicting risk of cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the outputs of machine learning algorithms designed to predict risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) address known deficiencies of the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and improve risk estimates. METHODS: For this critical review, Medline, Embase and IEEE were searched from inception to 1 January 2025. Included were studies describing machine learning algorithms designed to specifically compare output of cardiovascular risk assessment with the FRS. Commentaries, letters, unpublished work or non-peer-reviewed papers were excluded.Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two reviewers screened titles and abstracts independently, then populated a purpose-built data extraction form. A subsequent qualitative thematic analysis focused on algorithms' strengths, added value, potential harms, unintended consequences and equity implications.The main outcome assessed was whether, among healthy adults, the algorithm improved CVD risk prediction relative to the FRS. RESULTS: Of 707 studies retrieved, 29 met inclusion criteria. 23 reported improved predictive ability relative to the FRS. Most datasets and/or medical records used included sociodemographic predictors of CVD not included among FRS inputs. Some added costly diagnostic tests like CT angiography to FRS screening indicators. When they were defined, inputs and outcomes such as hypertension or myocardial infarction did not always adhere to FRS values. Statistical significance was generally taken as a proxy for clinical significance. Some algorithms overestimated the number at risk compared with the FRS without discussing whether that larger proportion might be at risk of overdiagnosis rather than CVD, while a few decreased the proportion found to be at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Use of artificial intelligence to improve accuracy of risk assessment for CVD demonstrates the technological capacity to merge known sociodemographic predictors with biologic variables and examine non-linear interactions among these. Still needed to achieve patient benefit is clinical insight, adherence to screening principles and cost-benefit assessment of inputs selected.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Systematic review of machine learning approaches for predicting sickle cell crisis and mortality risk at the climate-health nexus.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell anemia (SCA) is a severe genetic blood disorder characterized by recurrent vaso-occlusive crises and increased mortality, with the greatest burden occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Climatic and environmental conditions, including temperature variability, humidity, rainfall, air pollution, and seasonal changes, have been associated with disease exacerbation. However, the extent to which these factors have been incorporated into predictive models remains unclear. This study systematically reviews the application of machine learning (ML) models for predicting SCA crises and mortality in relation to climate and environmental factors. METHODOLOGY: The PRISMA guidelines were used, and 34 peer-reviewed studies published between 2005 and 2026 were analyzed to identify the climate variables, ML approaches employed, and predictive performance. The reviewed studies applied a range of ML techniques, including artificial neural networks, random forests, support vector machines, decision trees, logistic regression, and deep learning models. Temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind speed, air quality indicators, and seasonal patterns were the most frequently examined environmental variables. RESULTS: The findings indicate that most existing models rely predominantly on clinical and demographic data, with limited integration of climate information and inadequate representation of high-burden regions, especially Sub-Saharan Africa. Studies incorporating environmental variables reported improved predictive performance and highlighted the potential of climate-informed early warning systems for SCA management. CONCLUSION: The review recommends development of interdisciplinary, climate-aware ML frameworks, expansion of longitudinal environmental datasets, and increased research in underrepresented regions to support climate-resilient and patient-centered SCA care.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Beyond predictive performance: A systematic review and critical methodological appraisal of AI/ML and conventional modelling strategies in breast, colorectal, and pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Predictive modelling for cancer risk, treatment-related complications, and survival is central to precision oncology. Conventional logistic regression (LR) and Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) regression remain widely used but are limited when modelling nonlinear interactions, high-dimensional imaging features, and multimodal clinical-metabolic predictors. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods offer expanded capability through automated feature extraction, ensemble learning, and flexible survival modelling, but the evidence on when AI/ML adds value over conventional models across cancer sites and predictive tasks remains fragmented. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the methodological performance, validation strategies, and translational limitations of AI/ML models compared with conventional statistical models in published predictive-modelling studies for breast, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2019 and March 2025. Two reviewers independently conducted title-and-abstract screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and PROBAST risk-of-bias assessment. Sixty-five studies (n = 907,567 participants) were narratively synthesised by cancer site, predictive task, model family, comparator, validation strategy, predictor modality, and calibration or explainability reporting. RESULTS: The 65 studies comprised breast cancer (n = 35), colorectal cancer (n = 21), and pancreatic cancer (n = 9). AI/ML superiority over LR and CoxPH was task- and data-dependent. CNN- and U-Net-based models predominated in imaging and body-composition tasks, tree-based ensembles consistently outperformed LR for tabular perioperative complication prediction, and CoxPH remained competitive, and in the largest pancreatic risk study, superior to XGBoost (C-index 0.802 vs 0.723) in well-structured datasets. PROBAST analysis-domain risk was moderate in 54 of 65 studies (83%), driven by limited external validation, sparse calibration reporting (11/65), and few decision-curve analyses (7/65). CONCLUSION: AI/ML adds the most methodological value in imaging-derived feature extraction and nonlinear perioperative prediction, while conventional regression remains preferable in large, structured datasets with linear predictors. Clinical translation requires standardised body-composition definitions, external validation, calibration assessment, decision-curve analysis, and explainability, in line with TRIPOD+AI and CLAIM standards.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

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

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.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Predicting training outcomes for developmental dyslexia from EEG data.

Developmental dyslexia (DD) is characterised by lower-than-average reading abilities and is diagnosed in approximately 10% of individuals. The societal barriers may limit professional fulfilment and psychological wellbeing of individuals with DD, calling for the development of effective interventions to counteract them. As DD is associated with challenges in both phonological and visuo-attentional domains, different longitudinal training approaches were developed to strengthen them. However, they require a considerable amount of personal, social and economic resources and the outcomes may vary depending on individual differences in behavioural and neurophysiological functionality. Hence, predicting training outcomes might help in developing personalised treatment protocols and optimising the use of resources. In the present work we applied machine learning to resting-state EEG to predict longitudinal training outcomes in adults with DD enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. In particular, one group received a visuo-attentional training combined with transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), another group received visuo-attentional training with sham/placebo stimulation, and the third group received a phonological training with sham/placebo stimulation. The improvement in text reading speed was associated with spectral power in low-beta and individual frequencies in the alpha (IAF) and beta (IBF) bands, while the improvement in pseudoword reading was associated with IBF. The findings highlight the potential of capturing neural markers of treatment responsiveness in DD. Future studies should focus on the generalisability of predictive models to real-world settings, while investigating whether specific EEG markers predict responsiveness to distinct remediation protocols, thus supporting the development of personalised interventions.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Machine learning-based prediction of unplanned readmission and construction of an online calculator for elderly patients with mild ischemic stroke.

OBJECTIVE: To screen for independent risk factors for unplanned readmission in elderly patients with mild ischemic stroke, and to construct and validate an online risk prediction calculator based on an interpretable machine learning model, thereby providing a promising practical tool for accurate clinical assessment of 30‑day all‑cause unplanned readmission risk in this population. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted, including 1050 patients aged ≥ 60 years with mild ischemic stroke admitted between August 2023 and September 2024. Participants were randomly divided into a training set (840 cases) and a test set (210 cases) at a ratio of 8:2. Risk factors were screened by univariate analysis and multivariable Logistic regression. Four machine learning models, namely LightGBM, XGBoost, Random Forest, and K‑Nearest Neighbors (KNN), were developed and their performance was evaluated using AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity as metrics. The SHAP framework was used for interpretability analysis, and an online calculator was subsequently developed based on the optimal model. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed significant differences (P < 0.05) in 13 factors including age, smoking, AIP, TyG index, HALP score, etc. Multivariable Logistic regression identified age (OR = 9.752), smoking (OR = 5.171), AIP (OR = 6.691), TyG index (OR = 4.393), HALP score (OR = 2.831), and ≥ 2 comorbidities (OR = 3.664) as independent risk factors. All four machine learning models demonstrated good predictive performance. Based on a comprehensive evaluation of multiple metrics and computational efficiency, the LightGBM model exhibited the best predictive performance (AUC = 0.884, accuracy = 0.829, sensitivity = 0.812, specificity = 0.875). SHAP analysis showed that age, AIP, TyG index, smoking, and HALP score were key predictors. An online calculator developed based on this model enables individualized risk predictions. CONCLUSION: Key risk factors associated with 30‑day unplanned readmission in elderly patients with mild ischemic stroke were identified. The LightGBM model demonstrated high predictive accuracy, and together with the interpretability analysis and online calculator, offers a practical tool to support clinical risk assessment. However, this tool requires future external validation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Predicting ACL injury risk in athletes: A systematic review of machine learning-based models.

BACKGROUND: Early ACL injury risk identification in athletes is essential. This systematic review examines machine learning (ML) models for predicting ACL injuries, evaluating their methodological quality, performance, and reliability. METHOD: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases, supplemented by Google Scholar for grey literature, covering articles published between January 1, 2015, and August 30, 2025. Eligible studies were appraised using the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for methodological quality and risk of bias, and the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines for quality of evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies were included. PROBAST showed eight studies had moderate risk of bias and two low risk. TRIPOD found only two studies met quality criteria. ML models included logistic regression (n = 5), support vector machines (n = 4), k-nearest neighbor (n = 3), decision trees (n = 3), random forests (n = 5), neural networks (n = 2), linear discriminant analysis (n = 1), and pre-trained CNNs (n = 1). AUC ranged from 0.63 to 0.98. Accuracy (reported in six studies) ranged from 26% to 95%; however, these values should be interpreted with caution due to the absence of confidence intervals, lack of class imbalance handling, and limited external validation across studies. Tree-based ensemble methods such as random forest achieved competitive accuracy (74-86%), while SVM, a non-ensemble classifier, reported accuracy ranging from 71% to 95%; however, the highest values were obtained in studies with notably small sample sizes (n = 12 to n = 39), raising concerns about overfitting and generalizability. CONCLUSION: Current ML algorithms show promise for identifying athletes at high ACL injury risk and detecting relevant risk factors. Although study quality was generally satisfactory, future research should prioritize external validation and model interpretability to support clinical translation.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Machine learning vs. traditional methods for predicting postoperative cardiac complications after non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate prediction of peri-operative cardiac complications is critical to optimise pre-operative decision-making. Traditional risk prediction scores, such as the Revised Cardiac Risk Index, show only modest discrimination. Machine learning can model complex, non-linear relationships but their predictive performance compared with traditional scores remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was postoperative adverse cardiac events following non-cardiac surgery. Prediction models were assessed relative to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index. As many studies evaluated multiple versions of each model type, the highest performing ('best version') and lowest performing ('worst version') results were analysed. Models were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: Thirteen studies evaluating 54 models and 927,113 patients were included. Machine learning approaches generally outperformed traditional risk scores. Automated machine learning ranked highest (SUCRA 96.6) showed the greatest improvement in the best version analysis (mean difference (MD) 0.28 (95%CrI 0.16-0.40)) and remained superior in the sensitivity analysis (MD 0.30 (95%CrI 0.14-0.45)). Gradient boosting models showed superior performance over the Revised Cardiac Risk Index across analysis (best version: MD 0.20 (95%CrI 0.14-0.26), worst version: MD 0.18 (95%CrI 0.12-0.25), SUCRA 82.4). The Gupta Perioperative Risk for Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest score outperformed the Revised Cardiac Risk Index in the best version analysis (MD 0.16 (95%CrI 0.01-0.32)). Between-study heterogeneity was low. None of the included studies externally validated their machine learning models and only six were judged to be at low risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Most machine learning models showed better discrimination than traditional risk scores, with automated machine learning and gradient boosting models ranking highest. However, study quality, calibration reporting and absence of external validation limit immediate clinical adoption. Prospective, multicentre evaluation is required before integration of these models into peri-operative practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Construction of precision clinical-proteomics risk model based on machine learning for predicting heart failure in type II diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a severe complication in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but current risk stratification scores have limited predictive accuracy. We aimed to develop novel prediction tools integrating clinical variables with proteomics to improve risk stratification of hospitalization for HF in T2DM. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this study, we included 2111 UK Biobank participants with T2DM but no prior HF, and profiled 2920 proteins to predict 10-year incident HF hospitalization. Participants were randomly divided into training (70%), tuning (10%), and validation (20%) sets.Three prediction models were developed: a Clinical model based on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medication use, and laboratory indices; a Protein model based on 40 proteins selected by the Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM); and the Clinical OMics and Protein ASSessment for Heart Failure (COMPASS-HF) model, which integrated both clinical variables and the LGBM-selected proteins. Models were evaluated for area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. During follow-up, 168 participants (7.96%) developed incident HF. The COMPASS-HF model showed better discrimination than the Clinical model, with an AUC of 0.897 (95% CI: 0.850-0.945) versus 0.790 (95% CI: 0.723-0.856). It also demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.882; 95% CI: 0.725-0.967) and consistent performance in subgroups. COMPASS-HF effectively stratified risk of hospitalization for HF, with cumulative incidence rates of 31.9% in the high-risk group and 1.2% in the low-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: By combining clinical and proteomic variables, we developed a high-performance HF prediction model for T2DM, enabling precise risk stratification and informing early intervention strategies.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence in treatment prediction for skeletal Class III malocclusion: A systematic review.

In skeletal Class III patients, treatment options range from orthodontics to orthognathic surgery. Choosing the optimal approach requires a comprehensive clinical evaluation, which may be supported by AI tools. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of AI models in predicting the need for orthognathic surgery and in identifying predictors influencing treatment decisions. A PRISMA-guided electronic database search (PubMed, Web of Science; 2009-2024; English/French) was performed to identify studies using machine learning (ML) or deep learning (DL) on cephalometric and clinical data. After screening and assessment for eligibility, 15 studies were critically appraised. Model performance was summarized using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC). ML algorithms (particularly Random Forest and XGBoost) and DL models (ResNet-based convolutional neural networks (CNNs)) achieved high accuracy for predicting surgical need. Frequently selected predictors included Wits appraisal, ANB angle, the maxillomandibular ratio (Mx/Md), overjet, and the divergence of the lower gonial angle. AI methods show promise for assisting treatment decisions in Class III malocclusion, with Random Forest and XGBoost performing well on tabular cephalometric data and CNNs on imaging. Larger, multicentre datasets and external validation are needed to improve reliability, address bias, and support clinical implementation.

Humans↗