SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Prediction”

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.

349 records · Page 20Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

How Following Medical Artificial Intelligence Advice Can Mitigate Malpractice Liability: Cross-National Insights from a Randomized Trial.

Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly influences clinical decision-making, yet its recommendations may diverge from standard care. Although malpractice concerns are thought to discourage physicians from following AI advice, experimental evidence from the United States suggests the opposite: lay jurors are more likely to hold physicians liable when they reject AI recommendations. Whether this pattern extends to systems in which court-appointed experts, not lay jurors, determine liability remains unknown. Methods: To examine how physicians and laypeople in expert-based and lay-juror legal systems evaluate physicians' acceptance or rejection of AI recommendations, particularly when those recommendations deviate from standard care, we designed a randomized vignette study: a 2 × 2 factorial design varying the AI recommendation (standard vs. nonstandard care) and a fictional physician's decision (accept vs. reject). The study was conducted online in 2023 among nationally representative samples of U.S. and German adults and from 2023 to 2024 among German physicians. In total, 387 German physicians, 2291 U.S. adults, and 2283 German adults participated; those not completing the survey or failing attention checks were excluded per preregistered criteria. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 vignettes, varying the AI recommendation (standard vs. nonstandard care) and physician's decision (accept vs. reject). The reasonableness of the fictional physician's decision was measured, rated by participants on a Likert scale. Results: Analysis, following preregistered exclusion criteria, included 248 German physicians, 1202 U.S. adults, and 1358 German adults. Physicians accepting standard-care AI recommendations were rated more reasonable than those rejecting them (U.S. laypeople: t = 5.36; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97; P < 0.001; German physicians: t = 2.47; 95% CI, 0.14-1.30; P = 0.02; German laypeople: t = 4.14; 95% CI, 0.27-0.76; P < 0.001). Ratings of physicians accepting versus rejecting AI nonstandard-care recommendations were statistically equivalent. Equivalence was tested at an α-value of 0.05 using a two 1-sided tests procedure, reported with 90% CIs per standard convention (U.S. laypeople: t = -4.90; 90% CI, -0.1 to 0.36; P < 0.001; German physicians: t = -1.76; 90% CI, -0.12 to 0.67; P = 0.04; German laypeople: t = 5.35; 90% CI, -0.35 to 0.06; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Across the United States and Germany, samples representative of lay jurors and court-appointed experts viewed accepting standard-care AI advice as more reasonable, whereas accepting or rejecting nonstandard-care AI advice was judged similarly. Contrary to predictions, malpractice liability regimes do not necessarily pose a barrier to AI use in precision medicine.

Artificial Intelligence↗

PubMed2026

Hypoxaemia and mortality in children with lower respiratory infection in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxaemic lower respiratory infections (LRIs) are a leading cause of childhood mortality, with the highest burden in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Hypoxaemia-low peripheral capillary oxyhaemoglobin saturation (SpO2)-is a marker of severity, and WHO recommends hospitalisation and oxygen administration for patients with SpO2 <90%. We aimed to update estimates from a 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis examining the association between hypoxaemia and mortality among children with LRIs in LMICs by incorporating studies published over the subsequent decade and evaluating mortality risk across multiple SpO2 thresholds. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis by searching PubMed, Embase, LILACS, Global Index Medicus, Web of Science, and Scopus for peer-reviewed studies published between Jan 1, 2015, and June 18, 2025, with combined terms related to pneumonia, children, mortality, and LMICs. We also included selected earlier studies through citation checking. Eligible studies reported associations between hypoxaemia and mortality in children younger than 5 years with LRIs in LMICs. We excluded case reports and case series with fewer than five deaths, studies focused exclusively on the neonatal period, and those limited to children with specific comorbidities or to postoperative patients, for consistency with the original review. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Eligible studies were combined with those from the original review and analysed using random-effects models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) by hypoxaemia threshold subgroup. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023433946). FINDINGS: We identified 7734 records; 26 new studies met inclusion criteria and were combined with 18 from the original review. The 44 studies were published between 1993 and 2024 and were primarily from Africa (25 [57%] of 44) or Asia (19 [43%]); some studies spanned multiple locations. Data from 33 studies including 155 633 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. Hypoxaemia of any threshold was associated with higher odds of LRI mortality (OR 4·36 [95% CI 3·52-5·39]) compared with no hypoxaemia. For SpO2 <90% versus 90-100%, OR for death was 4·75 (95% CI 3·42-6·58). For SpO2 90-94% versus 95-100%, mortality risk was more than twice as high (OR 2·27 [95% CI 1·22-4·25]). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 64-85% across analyses), and eight (24%) of 33 studies in the primary meta-analysis had a high overall risk of bias; however, a sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with low or moderate risk of bias yielded similar results. INTERPRETATION: SpO2 <90% strongly predicts mortality in children with LRIs in LMICs. Children with SpO2 90-94% also have elevated risk, suggesting that paediatric LRI and pneumonia treatment algorithms should consider management at this hypoxaemia threshold. FUNDING: None.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Wearable Digital Therapeutics in Improving Sleep Outcomes Among Individuals With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices are increasingly used for sleep monitoring and as adjunctive treatment. Existing meta-analyses mostly pool composite digital therapies and rarely isolate stand-alone wearables or distinguish between objective and subjective end points. Whether stand-alone wearable interventions improve sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia, and which factors moderate treatment heterogeneity, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable digital interventions on sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia versus control strategies and explore moderators of effectiveness, including device-wearing position, intervention duration, and control type, using meta-regression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses Literature Search Extension) guideline. Five electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating wearable digital interventions in adults with insomnia compared with sham, waitlist, usual care, or active control conditions and had an intervention duration of at least 1 week. Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated for the primary analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (N=910) were included. Wearable digital interventions were associated with a significant reduction in objective sleep-onset latency (SOL; mean difference [MD] -4.52, 95% CI -8.38 to -0.67, PI -9.52 to 0.47 min) and a significant improvement in subjective sleep efficiency (SE; MD 2.00%, 95% CI 1.90%-2.11%, PI 1.85%-2.15%). Subjective total sleep time (TST) also showed a significant increase (MD 19.11, 95% CI 2.98-35.24, PI -16.20 to 54.43 minutes). Meta-regression showed that control type, intervention duration, and device location did not explain the heterogeneity of the insomnia severity index (ISI) (R²=0). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled ISI estimates, and an Egger test indicated no small-study effects (P=.07). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable digital interventions provide selective benefits for objective SOL, subjective SE, and subjective TST in adults with insomnia, with no improvement in overall ISI. Despite statistically significant effects on several sleep parameters, wide PIs, substantial heterogeneity, and limited study numbers indicate preliminary, nonconclusive findings. Wearables should be viewed as affordable adjunctive tools requiring further validation, not substitutes for first-line cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Large-scale, long-term RCTs with standardized protocols and patient-level external validation are required to consolidate the evidence base.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Extended Reality Interventions for Osteoarthritis of the Knee and Recovery After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Nonpharmacologic interventions are important for treating knee pain due to osteoarthritis or after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and extended reality (XR) technology may enhance treatments for these indications. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate XR interventions for pain due to knee osteoarthritis (KOA) or for recovery after TKA. METHODS: Databases were searched through May 2023 and updated in December 2025. Eligible trials evaluated XR interventions to treat KOA pain or after TKA. We classified interventions by depth of immersion and clinical mechanism. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to determine the certainty of evidence for prioritized outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed when ≥3 studies evaluated similar comparisons, outcomes, and time points. RESULTS: Eligible trials addressed KOA (k=12) or recovery after TKA (k=9). Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 306 participants, and most studies had a follow-up of ≤3 months. Nineteen studies assessed pain-related functioning and pain intensity, and 5 assessed adverse events (AEs). For KOA, 10 studies examined interactive digital rehabilitation (IDR), and 2 examined virtual reality (VR)-digitally augmented exercise (DAE). IDR for KOA may result in better pain-related functioning (low certainty of evidence [COE]; pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.06; prediction interval [PI] -1.72 to 0.55; k=5) and lower pain intensity at 6-8 weeks (low COE; pooled SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.00; PI -1.39 to 0.47; k=4). VR-DAE for KOA (k=2) produced inconsistent results (very low COE). For post-TKA studies, 5 examined IDR, 2 examined VR-DAE, 1 examined VR-distraction, and 1 examined VR-psychoeducation. Post-TKA IDR may result in better pain-related functioning (low [k=4] and moderate COE [k=1]) but little to no difference in pain intensity (low-moderate COE; pooled SMD at 3-4 months -0.12, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.52; PI -1.63 to 1.27; k=3). VR-psychoeducation probably results in lower pain at 4 weeks (moderate COE; k=1), and VR-distraction may result in 6 months (low COE; k=1), whereas VR-DAE produced mixed findings (k=2; very low COE). IDR was not associated with AEs, and VR may not be associated with AEs for KOA (high and low COE), though AE reporting was uncommon (k=5) and evidence was very uncertain for post-TKA. CONCLUSIONS: IDR may augment treatment for KOA and post-TKA recovery, and VR may benefit post-TKA rehabilitation. This review is the first to stratify by level of immersion, clinical mechanism, and follow-up duration and to systematically evaluate AEs. IDR may be ready for integration into KOA care, while use after TKA needs more evidence. Randomized controlled trials with implementation outcomes could determine how XR interventions can be used for KOA, whereas trials evaluating efficacy and AEs are needed before their use for post-TKA.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Relationship between participant-reported outcomes, residual beta cell function and metabolic parameters in youth with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Clinical trials of interventions to preserve beta cell function in new-onset type 1 diabetes frequently employ participant-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the expected changes in PROMs scores immediately following diagnosis and their association with residual beta cell function, metabolic markers and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are unclear. METHODS: Repeated PROMs including Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory diabetes module (PedsQL) and hypoglycaemia fear survey (HFS) were recorded from participants aged 10-18 years with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and their parents in two clinical trials: CLOuD (N=97, hybrid closed loop [HCL] vs multiple daily injections [MDI]) and USTEKID (N=72, ustekinumab immunotherapy vs placebo). Scores were compared with serial mixed meal-stimulated C-peptide levels (AUC C-peptide), HbA1c and CGM data. RESULTS: PedsQL and HFS scores for children/adolescents and their parents showed wide variation between individuals but did not change substantially within individuals over the first 48 months from diagnosis. Baseline scores were highly predictive of scores at 12-48 months (p<0.001). PedsQL scores were higher (better) in those reported by children/adolescents than by their parents (p<0.01). In contrast, HFS scores were higher in parents than children (p<0.001), indicating more fear. Strong correlations were observed between child and parent scores (p<0.001). No significant improvement in these scores was detected following intervention (ustekinumab or HCL). Meta-analysis revealed modest but statistically significant associations between HbA1c and PedsQL (β(std)=-0.11; 95% CI -0.20, -0.03) and HFS (β(std)=0.11; 95% CI 0.00, 0.21), and between CGM time in range and PedsQL (β(std)=0.14; 95% CI 0.03, 0.26) but not HFS (β(std)=-0.05; 95% CI -0.16, 0.06). Beta cell function (AUC C-peptide) was strongly associated with HbA1c (β(std)=-0.29; 95% CI -0.39, -0.20) and CGM time in range (β(std)=0.41; 95% CI 0.30, 0.52). Higher beta cell function showed a trend towards better PedsQL (β(std)=0.11; 95% CI -0.03, 0.25) and lower HFS (β(std)=-0.05; 95% CI -0.17, 0.07) but this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: PedsQL and HFS scores changed little during the first 48 months after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. These scores showed modest but statistically significant associations with measures of glucose management (HbA1c and CGM time in range), whereas the relationships with residual beta cell function (C-peptide) were weaker and did not reach significance. The modest size of these effects suggests current PROMs capture only limited aspects of the clinical benefit associated with beta cell preservation. Future research should incorporate psychometric instruments that are specifically adapted for young people using modern diabetes technologies and undergoing disease-modifying therapy, to ensure outcomes are meaningfully represented in early-stage type 1 diabetes trials.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2026

Methods for defining equity-stratifying variables: a systematic review of validation studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Disease burden is often disproportionally higher among those who are socially disadvantaged by factors defined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework (ie, Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, with "Plus" covering features like age and disability). The accuracy and applicability of case definitions to identify these variables from administrative and clinical health data are unknown. We conducted a systematic review to explore how equity-stratifying variables, as categorized by the PROGRESS-Plus framework, have been defined and validated in epidemiologic studies using administrative health, population-level, or electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the inception of the databases to 2024 for validation studies of equity-stratifying variables in adults using administrative health datasets, health registries, or EHR data. Titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full-text articles, were screened in duplicate by two reviewers for eligibility. The data sources utilized, algorithms employed, and their associated performance measures were extracted and synthesized from included studies. Given substantial heterogeneity in study design, equity-stratifying variable definition, and performance metrics, meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of the 9099 unique citations screened, 188 full texts were reviewed and 116 were included in this review. Most studies were published between 2019 and 2024 (n = 64, 55%) and were validation studies of race/ethnicity definitions that used race/ethnicity codes or surname list algorithms (n = 66, 57%). No studies examined religion. Regarding the reported performance measure estimates, the race/ethnicity/culture/language equity-stratifying variables category had the largest variability across sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Cohen's Kappa. Occupation validation studies had the lowest variation in sensitivity and PPV. CONCLUSION: Despite an increasing number of publications reporting on the validation of equity-stratifying variables relevant to the PROGRESS-Plus framework, performance measures varied widely across studies. The significant heterogeneity in equity-stratifying variable definitions and methods used to validate them support the need for further rigorous validation of equity-stratifying variables in administrative and clinical health data. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Disease burden is often higher in people who experience financial hardships, lower level of education, discrimination due to race/ethnicity, and unstable housing. These social factors can be considered health equity factors and are important for understanding health inequalities. Health researchers often use large datasets, such as hospital or electronic health records (EHRs), to study these health equity factors. However, it is not clear how accurately these data sources capture information about people's social circumstances and how these factors are defined. In this study, we reviewed existing research to understand how health equity factors have been defined across health data sources and how accurate they are at measuring aspects of health equity and social disadvantage. Of the more than 9000 studies we identified, we included 116 that met our criteria for this systematic review. Most included studies focused on identifying race and ethnicity, often using codes or surname-based methods. We found that the accuracy of these methods varied widely across studies, meaning results may not always be reliable or comparable. Overall, our findings show that there are inconsistencies in how social factors are defined and measured in health data. This makes it difficult to fully understand and address health inequalities using routinely collected health data. More work is needed to develop and validate better quality and more consistent methods for capturing these important social factors.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Caregiver-Mediated Spoken Language Interventions for Children Under Five at Risk of Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Caregiver-mediated interventions are commonly used by Speech and Language Therapists to support early language development. Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is associated with reduced quality of life throughout the lifespan. Understanding factors that predict intervention success is essential for developing appropriate, cost-effective therapy provision for the approximately 12% of preschool children who present with early markers for Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions for under-fives at risk of DLD, and factors influencing intervention effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Five electronic databases were searched to identify experimental studies comparing caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions to control conditions in under-fives presenting with risk factors for DLD. Risk factors included prematurity, socioeconomic factors, caregiver language development concerns, and formal or informal language screening or assessment scores. Twenty-six experimental studies with 1407 child participants were included in qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis was performed on nine Randomised Controlled Trials involving 947 children. RESULTS: Effectiveness was examined for outcomes including child language gains, child wellbeing, inclusion and attainment. Meta-analysis indicated a significant effect of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions on language outcomes compared to treatment-as-usual, non-language intervention or waitlist control conditions. Non-language outcomes were evaluated via qualitative synthesis. Interventions significantly improved language development trajectories for under-fives presenting with risk factors or early markers for DLD. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This review contributes to the growing evidence base demonstrating that caregiver-mediated interventions can positively impact language development and wellbeing outcomes for children under five at risk of DLD. These findings support the implementation of caregiver-mediated environmental language interventions in clinical practice to maximise accessibility and cost-effectiveness while delivering optimal outcomes for vulnerable populations. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Previous research on caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions has highlighted gaps in the evidence regarding the impact of risk factors, demographic characteristics, dosage and intervention components on child language outcomes. Developmental Language Disorder has relatively high population prevalence, estimated at 7%. Prevalence is associated with risk factors including low household socioeconomic status (SES), prematurity and late language emergence. In contrast to its prevalence, there is low public and professional awareness of DLD and a low diagnostic rate. Therefore, a strengthened evidence base and additional insights into the factors affecting success of family-based interventions is important in order to increase the effectiveness of service provision and care planning for this underserved population. Timely and effective intervention with young children presenting with early markers for DLD has the potential to offer lifelong improvement to their wellbeing, inclusion and attainment outcomes. Recent systematic reviews of the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated language interventions had differences in population age range and diagnostic inclusion criteria. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Our review examines the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated early spoken language interventions on child language, attainment and wellbeing, and on caregiver self-efficacy and adherence to language support strategies. Our population was children under five presenting with risk factors for Developmental Language Disorder, in the absence of other neurodevelopmental or genetic conditions such as intellectual disability or autism. This review adds depth and detail to the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions in improving outcomes for this population of young children, and factors that influence their success. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The high prevalence of Developmental Language Disorder, estimated at around 7% of the population, and the strong association with risk factors including low SES, prematurity and late language emergence, coupled with the low awareness of DLD and low diagnostic rate, mean that a strengthened evidence base and additional insights into the factors affecting success of family-based interventions can increase the effectiveness of service provision and care planning for this population. Timely and effective intervention in this group of young children has the potential to improve wellbeing and attainment outcomes across the lifespan. This review contributes to our understanding of how to implement cost-effective, socially valid and maximally engaging partnership working with families of young children at risk for DLD.

Humans↗