Background

JMIR

J Med Internet Res

Journal of Medical Internet Research

1438-8871

JMIR Publications

Toronto, Canada

v27i1e66615

40359510

10.2196/66615

Review

Predictive Modeling of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Using Machine Learning: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sarvestan

Javad

Rasool

Abdur

Hajikarimloo

Bardia

Amirkhani

Nikan

Yang

Jinxi

MS 1

https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0153-6759

Zeng

Siyao

PhD 1

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3179-2728

Cui

Shanpeng

MS 1

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5963-6642

Zheng

Junbo

PhD 2

https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0569-5764

Wang

Hongliang

PhD 2

Department of Critical Care Medicine The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University

No. 246 Xuefu Road, Nangang District

Heilongjiang Province, Harbin, 150086

China 86 0451 86662961 86 15045377888 icuwanghongliang@163.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1407-0072

1 The Second Clinical Medical College Harbin Medical University

Heilongjiang Province, Harbin

China 2 Department of Critical Care Medicine The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University

Heilongjiang Province, Harbin

China

Corresponding Author: Hongliang Wang icuwanghongliang@163.com

2025

13 5 2025

e66615

18 9 2024 10 12 2024 1 2 2025 19 3 2025

©Jinxi Yang, Siyao Zeng, Shanpeng Cui, Junbo Zheng, Hongliang Wang. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 13.05.2025.

2025

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Background

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical condition commonly encountered in the intensive care unit (ICU), characterized by a high incidence and substantial mortality rate. Early detection and accurate prediction of ARDS can significantly improve patient outcomes. While machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being used for ARDS prediction, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective model or methodology. This study is the first to systematically evaluate the performance of ARDS prediction models based on multiple quantitative data sources. We compare the effectiveness of ML models via a meta-analysis, revealing factors affecting performance and suggesting strategies to enhance generalization and prediction accuracy.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the performance of existing ARDS prediction models through a systematic review and meta-analysis, using metrics such as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and other relevant indicators. The findings will provide evidence-based insights to support the development of more accurate and effective ARDS prediction tools.

Methods

We performed a search across 6 electronic databases for studies developing ML predictive models for ARDS, with a cutoff date of December 29, 2024. The risk of bias in these models was evaluated using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Meta-analyses and investigations into heterogeneity were carried out using Meta-DiSc software (version 1.4), developed by the Ramón y Cajal Hospital’s Clinical Biostatistics team in Madrid, Spain. Furthermore, sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity more comprehensively.

Results

ML models achieved a pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.7407 for ARDS. The additional metrics were as follows: sensitivity was 0.67 (95% CI 0.66-0.67; P<.001; I²=97.1%), specificity was 0.68 (95% CI 0.67-0.68; P<.001; I²=98.5%), the diagnostic odds ratio was 6.26 (95% CI 4.93-7.94; P<.001; I²=95.3%), the positive likelihood ratio was 2.80 (95% CI 2.46-3.19; P<.001; I²=97.3%), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.51 (95% CI 0.46-0.57; P<.001; I²=93.6%).

Conclusions

This study evaluates prediction models constructed using various ML algorithms, with results showing that ML demonstrates high performance in ARDS prediction. However, many of the existing models still have limitations. During model development, it is essential to focus on model quality, including reducing bias risk, designing appropriate sample sizes, conducting external validation, and ensuring model interpretability. Additionally, challenges such as physician trust and the need for prospective validation must also be addressed. Future research should standardize model development, optimize model performance, and explore how to better integrate predictive models into clinical practice to improve ARDS diagnosis and risk stratification.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42024529403; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024529403

acute respiratory distress syndrome machine learning predictive modeling systematic evaluation ICU detection prediction models effectiveness patient outcomes PRISMA

Introduction

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous condition characterized by diffuse lung inflammation and edema, affecting 10% of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and 23% of mechanically ventilated patients, with mortality rates up to 45% [1]. The Berlin definition, widely used for ARDS diagnosis, faced challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly its positive end-expiratory pressure ≥5 cm H₂O requirement, as many patients on noninvasive ventilation did not meet this criterion. In 2023, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine updated its guidelines to broaden the ARDS definition and improve diagnostic tools [2]. Despite these advancements, early prediction and management of ARDS remain challenging due to its clinical complexity and heterogeneity.

In recent years, machine learning (ML) has emerged as a highly promising tool in the medical field, particularly in the areas of early diagnosis and enhancing clinical decision-making [3]. The field has witnessed rapid advancements, especially after 2020, with advanced models, such as transformer architectures, multimodal ML, explainable ML, and reinforcement learning techniques, achieving significant improvements in both performance and efficiency [4-7]. These advancements have not only provided a new technological foundation for our research but also prompted us to re-evaluate existing methodologies. ML focuses on how to use data to improve system performance through computational methods [8]. Previous studies have demonstrated that both supervised and unsupervised ML techniques can be applied to build risk models and refine patient categorization [9]. However, there are several critical gaps in the current literature. For example, some ARDS prediction studies, being small-sample and single-center, have reduced the generalizability of their models, limiting their applicability to broader patient populations [10]. Additionally, variations in data extraction and preprocessing methods, inconsistent evaluation metrics (eg, AUC and sensitivity), and suboptimal model optimization techniques hinder the comparability and performance of ML models.

A 2024 meta-analysis reviewed over a dozen ML algorithms for ARDS prediction but found no consensus on the best-performing approach across diverse clinical scenarios [11]. Furthermore, few studies have comprehensively evaluated multiple data sources to assess model performance, highlighting the need for systematic comparisons.

This study aims to address the existing gaps through a systematic review and meta-analysis of ARDS prediction models. We followed a standardized process, sequentially conducting data extraction and quality assessment, and compared the predictive performance of different ML algorithms using metrics such as AUC, sensitivity, and specificity. Through subgroup analysis and meta-regression, we identified sources of heterogeneity and explored key factors influencing model performance. Based on these findings, we provided specific implementation strategies for developing reliable and generalizable ARDS prediction models.

Methods Research Design

This study was carried out in adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 1) [12].

Search Methods

A thorough literature search was performed across 6 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane) up to December 29, 2024, to locate studies investigating the use of ML in predicting and diagnosing ARDS. Search terms included combinations of “artificial intelligence,” “deep learning,” “machine learning,” “neural networks, computer,” “acute respiratory distress syndrome,” and “prediction.” For a detailed search strategy, refer to Multimedia Appendix 2.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included based on the following criteria: (1) published in English and (2) involving a study population of adults aged 18 years and older; (3) the diagnosis of ARDS was confirmed; (4) the study developed or updated a predictive model; (5) the study presented at least one validated ML predictive model; (6) the study adequately evaluated the performance of the model, providing data to derive sensitivity and specificity; and (7) the study encompassed both prospective and retrospective cohort studies, along with control groups from pertinent randomized controlled trials.

Studies were excluded if (1) the study population included individuals younger than 18 years, (2) the article was not published in English, and (3) the article was a case report or review or the article failed to provide adequate data.

Data Extraction

Data extraction and screening were conducted by JXY and SYZ in accordance with the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis standardized protocol [13]. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus with the involvement of a third researcher, SPC. The level of agreement between the 2 researchers was assessed using the Cohen κ statistic. In total, 17 studies were selected for analysis. The extracted data from each study included (1) demographic information; (2) methods for data segmentation, feature selection techniques, ML algorithms, and model validation and application; and (3) prediction outcomes such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

Assessment of Bias

The Predictive modeling Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias (ROB) and the applicability of the included literature. PROBAST consists of 4 domains (study population, predictors, outcomes, and statistical analyses), comprising a total of 20 questions [14].

Statistical Analysis

The performance of a prediction model is evaluated through 2 key metrics: calibration and discrimination. Discriminative power is assessed by the AUROC value, while model calibration assesses the agreement between observed and predicted outcomes, often visualized through calibration plots [15]. The Meta-DiSc (version 1.4) software program was used in this meta-analysis to calculate pooled estimates of AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NegLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) [16]. This software allows for the combination of effect sizes, examination of heterogeneity, and assessment of threshold effects. The I² statistic assessed statistical heterogeneity among the included studies, with an I² value above 75% indicating significant heterogeneity [17]. The study included both primary and subgroup analyses to evaluate the performance of different ML methods for predicting ARDS in clinical settings. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. The subgroup analysis focused on comparing the predictive capabilities of different ML algorithms (eg, logistic regression, Bayesian modeling, and artificial neural networks [ANNs]) in ARDS prediction, while the sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the study’s findings. Regression analysis is used to explore and explain the heterogeneity between different study results. It can help reveal potential influencing factors and analyze which variables might affect the effect size of each study.

Results Selection of Studies

The search initially yielded 756 records. After duplicates were removed, 448 records remained. Titles and abstracts were then screened, resulting in the evaluation of 46 articles based on inclusion criteria. Ultimately, 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis [18-34]. Cohen κ was used to assess the agreement between the 2 researchers during the literature screening process. The resulting value was 0.818, indicating strong agreement between the researchers (>0.8 is considered strong agreement). The PRISMA flowchart illustrating the study screening process is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for study selection.

Characteristics of the Studies

A total of 17 studies [18-34], involving 148,384 patients, were included in the analysis; all were published within the last 10 years, with 2 published in 2024. In total, 9 studies [18,22-25,27,31,33,34] focused on ICU patients, 6 [19,21,28,30,32] on hospitalized patients, and 2 [26,29] included both ICU and hospitalized patients. In total, 4 studies [18,23,28,30] examined patients with COVID-19 infection, while another 4 [19-21,31] focused on patients with acute pancreatitis. In total, 64 models were systematically evaluated. Table 1 provides detailed information on the characteristics of the included studies.

Table 1

Study characteristics.

Author, year	Sample size	Model type	Data source	ARDS^a definition or identification	Department	External validation	Outcomes (top models and predictors)
Zhou et al [18], 2023	103	XGBoost^b CNN^c	Shanghai Renji Hospital	Berlin definition	ICU^d	No	XGBoost Age PaO₂/FiO₂^e CRP^f The count of total T-lymphocytes Interleukin-6
Zou et al [19], 2023	214	ANN^g LR^h	Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University	Berlin definition	Hospitalized patient	No	ANN BISAPⁱ score PCT^j PT^k Ca2+
Zhang and Pang [20], 2023	460	SVM^l EDTs^m BCⁿ LR	Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University	Berlin definition	Hospitalized patient	No	BC PaO₂ CRP NLR^o Ca2+ WBC^p
Zhang et al [21], 2023	440	LR RF^q SVM DT^r XGBoost	Zhongda hospital	Berlin definition	Hospitalized patient	No	XGBoost PaO₂/FiO₂ APACHE II^s SOFA^t K⁺^u AMY^v
Wang et al [22], 2023	649	XGBoost LightGBM^w RF AdaBoost^x CNB^y SVM	MIMIC-III^z database	Berlin definition	ICU	No	RF Age Systolic blood pressure Heart rate Abbreviated Injury Score chest, etc
Singhal et al [23], 2021	14,785	XGBoost	Cerner real-world data Emory Healthcare UTHSC^aa-Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare	Berlin definition	ICU	Yes	XGBoost SpO₂^ab (minimum) Systolic blood pressure Age FiO₂ (max) Respiratory rate (max), etc
Mo et al [24], 2023	989	ANN LR	Changzhou Second People's Hospital	Berlin definition	ICU and the respiratory and critical care medicine departments	No	ANN LDH^ac APTT^ad PCT Age MRR^ae, etc
Marshall et al [25], 2022	2078	XGBoost	Emory University Healthcare	Berlin definition	ICU	No	XGBoost Presence of the ventilator Total time on ventilation Tidal volume Waveform features
Lam et al [26], 2022	40,703	XGBoost RNN^af	7 Hospital	Berlin definition	Emergency department inpatient ward and ICU	Yes	RNN Monocytes SpO₂
Bai et al [27], 2022	31,184	NB^ag LR XGBoost AdaBoost RF	Telehealth Intensive Care Unit MIMIC-IV^ah	ICD-9^ai ICD-10^aj	ICU	Yes	AdaBoost APACHE IV minimum and maximum HCO₃^ak lactate creatinine albumin, etc
Xu et al [28], 2021	659	LR RF SVM DT DNN^al	Wuhan and non-Wuhan areas which were confirmed with COVID-19	Berlin definition	Hospitalized patient	Yes	DT Severity evaluation at admission Gender Age BMI Temperature, etc
Lam et al [29], 2021	29,127	RNN	7 US hospitals	ICD-9	Emergency department inpatient ward and ICUICU	Yes	RNN Systolic blood pressure Respiratory rate
Izadi et al [30], 2022	8633	KNN^am SVM GLMNET^an BAYESGLM^ao GAM^ap GBM^aq NN^ar	COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry	Diagnosed by multiple experts	Hospitalized patient	Yes	GBM Age Higher average daily prednisone‐equivalent glucocorticoid doses Pulmonary hypertension Interstitial lung disease Chronic renal insufficiency or end‐stage renal disease Anti‐CD20 monoclonal antibody use, etc
Fei et al [31], 2018	217	ANN LR	Jinling Hospital	Berlin definition	Surgical Intensive Care Unit	No	ANN PNR^as LDH SaO₂%^at
Zhang et al [32], 2024	1996	DT GBDT^au XGBoost AdaBoost LightGBM RF Deep forest	NanjingFirst HospitalShanghai General Hospital	Berlin definition	Hospitalized patient	Yes	DT Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Preoperative albumin Central venous pressure Cardiopulmonary bypass time Left ventricular ejection fraction
Lin et al [33], 2024	11,409	KNN XGBoost SVM DNN^av DT	MIMIC-IV database	Oxygenation index<300	ICU	Yes	XGBoost Oxygenation index PaO₂ Hematocrit Heart rate Mean arterial pressure, etc
Wu et al [34], 2022	4738	LightGBM AdaBoost LR RF Naïve Bayes KNN SVM	Telehealth Intensive Care Unit Collaborative Research Database	Berlin definition	ICU	No	LightGBM SpO₂

^aARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome.

^bXGBoost: extreme gradient boosting.

^cCNN: convolutional neural network.

^dICU: intensive care unit.

^ePaO₂/FiO₂: arterial partial pressure of oxygen/fractional inspired:oxygen ratio.

^fCRP: C-reactive protein.

^gANN: artificial neural network.

^hLR: logistic regression.

ⁱBISAP: Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis.

^jPCT: procalcitonin.

^kPT: prothrombin time.

^lSVM: support vector machine.

^mEDT: ensembles of decision trees.

ⁿBC: Bayesian classifier.

^oNLR: neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.

^pWBC: white blood cell count.

^qRF: random forest.

^rDT: decision tree.

^sAPACHE II: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation.

^tSOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.

^uK⁺: potassium.

^vAMY: blood amylase.

^wLight GBM: light gradient boosting machine.

^xAdaBoost: adaptive boosting.

^yCNB: complement naïve Bayes.

^zMIMIC-III: Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III.

^aaUTHSC: University of Tennessee Health Science Center.

^abSpO₂: peripheral oxygen saturation.

^acLDH: lactate dehydrogenase.

^adAPTT: activated partial thromboplastin time.

^aeMRR: maximum respiratory rate.

^afRNN: recurrent neural network.

^agNB: naïve Bayes.

^ahMIMIC IV: Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV.

^aiICD-9: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Ninth Revision.

^ajICD-10: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision.

^akHCO₃: bicarbonate.

^alDNN: deep neural networks.

^amKNN: K-nearest neighbor.

^anGLMNET: LASSO and elastic net regularized generalized linear models.

^aoBAYESGLM: Bayesian generalized linear model.

^apGAM: generalized additive models.

^aqGBM: gradient boosting machine.

^arNN: neural network.

^asPNR: pancreatic necrosis rate.

^atSaO₂%: arterial blood oxygen saturation.

^auGBDT: gradient boosting decision trees.

^avDNN: deep neural network.

Feature Selection

While ML excels at handling large datasets, the presence of numerous irrelevant features necessitates effective feature selection. Feature selection is therefore a critical step in developing predictive models and can be categorized into filter, wrapper, and embedded methods [35]. The selection of predictors for each model in the study primarily included demographic data, etiology, past medical history, hemodynamic parameters, laboratory indices, and disease severity scores. The predictors used in the best-performing models across the 17 studies are shown in Table 1. For models with more than 5 predictors, only the top 5 were listed. Among the 17 studies included in the analysis, age emerged as the most prevalent predictive factor, appearing in 11 (64.7%) studies. This was followed by white blood cell count, which was identified as a predictor in 8/17 (47.1%) studies. Respiratory rate was recognized as a predictive factor in 7/17 (41.2%) studies, while arterial oxygen partial pressure or oxygenation index and platelet count were each listed as predictive indicators in 6/17 (35.3%) studies. Additionally, C-reactive protein was identified as an effective predictive marker in 5/17 (29.4%) studies.

Quality Assessment

The ROB and the applicability of prediction models were assessed using the PROBAST inventory. Unfortunately, 14 [18-26,28,30,31,33,34] of the included studies exhibited a high ROB (14/17, 82.4%). All 17 studies performed well in terms of study population, showing a low ROB. One study was assessed as having unclear risk in the area of predictors, while the remaining studies were low risk. In the outcome analysis, 6 studies [18,20,21,25,26,34] were considered high risk (6/17, 35.3%), primarily due to the inclusion of predictors directly related to the outcome definition. In total, 5 studies [19,22,24,31,32] were assessed as having unclear risk (5/17, 29.4%) due to insufficient detail on predictor selection or failure to provide time intervals between predictors and outcomes. In data analysis, 11 studies [18-20,22-25,28,30,31,33] were considered high risk (11/17, 64.7%), with the main reasons being insufficient sample size (9 studies), inadequate handling of missing data (8 studies), and the use of univariate analysis for selecting predictors (7 studies). In total, 5 studies [26,27,29,32,34] were assessed as having unclear risk because they did not indicate whether the regression coefficients were consistent with the reported results. Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 3 displays the results of the ROB evaluation.

The 17 included studies were well-aligned with the systematic evaluation in terms of the study population, predictors, and findings, and the applicability of the studies was assessed as low risk for applicability concerns.

Predicting the Performance of ML Models for ARDS

ML models achieved a pooled AUROC of 0.7407 for ARDS (Figure 2). The additional metrics were as follows: sensitivity was 0.67 (95% CI 0.66-0.67; P<.001; I²=97.1%; Figure 3), specificity was 0.68 (95% CI 0.67-0.68; P<.001; I²=98.5%; Figure 4), the DOR was 6.26 (95% CI 4.93-7.94; P<.001; I²=95.3%; Figure S2 in Multimedia Appendix 3), the PLR was 2.80 (95% CI 2.46-3.19; P<.001; I²=97.3%; Figure S3 in Multimedia Appendix 3), and the NegLR was 0.51 (95% CI 0.46-0.57; P<.001; I²=93.6%; Figure S4 in Multimedia Appendix 3).

Figure 2

The overall combined area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for machine learning models used in acute respiratory distress syndrome prediction. SROC: summary receiver operating characteristic.

Figure 3

The overall combined sensitivity of machine learning models for predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome [18-34].

Figure 4

The overall combined specificity of machine learning models for predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome [18-34].

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis was conducted using Stata software (version 18.0; StataCorp LLC), with the results displayed in Figure S5 (Multimedia Appendix 3). As shown in Figure S5, the results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that among the 64 models, 10 predictive models demonstrated strong sensitivity, while the remaining models did not significantly affect overall sensitivity. Additionally, the distribution of standardized residuals in the figure is relatively concentrated, with no obvious outliers detected. Therefore, the results of the meta-analysis are robust and can be considered reliable.

Publication Bias

To assess publication bias, we generated funnel plots using Stata software. The visual inspection of the funnel plots suggested approximate symmetry (P=.07). This result indicates that the conclusions of this meta-analysis are robust and not affected by the selective publication of studies (Figure S6 in Multimedia Appendix 3).

Subgroup Analysis

This study included a total of 64 predictive models based on over 10 ML algorithms. Table 2 shows the classification of predictive models. To evaluate the performance of the predictive models built using different algorithms, subgroup analyses were performed for those applied more than 3 times. The performance of each algorithm was evaluated using the AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NegLR, and DOR, as detailed in Table 3. A total of 14 predictive models were built using the gradient boosting algorithm, yielding a combined AUROC of 0.740. In total, 9 predictive models were based on the ANN algorithm, with an AUROC of 0.8138. In total, 8 models were built using the logistic regression (LR) algorithm, with a combined AUROC of 0.8188. In total, 7 models applied the support vector machine algorithm, with an AUROC of 0.5942. In total, 6 models applied the random forest (RF) algorithm, with an AUROC of 0.7622. Among the predictive models included in the subgroup analysis, the model using the LR algorithm demonstrated the highest AUROC, followed by the ANN algorithm, while the support vector machine algorithm exhibited the lowest performance in terms of AUROC. Additionally, the models exhibited varying performance across different metrics. The decision tree (DT) model achieved the highest sensitivity (0.881, 95% CI 0.855-0.903), the adaptive boosting (Adaboost) model showed the best specificity (0.797, 95% CI 0.785-0.808), the ANN model performed best in terms of DOR (10.671, 95% CI 5.075-22.440).

Table 2

Model classification.

Model	Tests, n/N (%)
Gradient boosting decision tree	14/64 (21.9)
Artificial neural network	9/64 (14.1)
Logistic regression	8/64 (12.5）
Support vector machine	7/64 (11)
Random forest	6/64 (9.4)
Bayesian algorithm	5/64 (7.8)
Decision tree	4/64 (6.3)
Adaptive boosting	4/64 (6.3)
K-nearest neighbor	3/64 (4.7)
Ensemble	1/64 (1.7)
Others	3/64 (4.7)

Table 3

Model subgroup analysis.

Model	AUROC^a	Sensitivity, 95% CI	Specificity, 95% CI	PLR^b, 95% CI	NegLR^c, 95% CI	DOR^d, 95% CI)
GB^e	0.740	0.684 (0.671-0.698)	0.748 (0.739-0.756)	3.333 (2.501-4.441)	0.514 (0.440-0.601)	6.985 (4.809-10.147)
ANN^f	0.8138	0.793 (0.781-0.806)	0.754 (0.736-0.772)	3.687 (2.126-6.396)	0.345 (0.261-0.455)	10.671 (5.075-22.440)
LR^g	0.8188	0.657 (0.641-0.672)	0.504 (0.490-0.519）	3.443 (2.145-5.528）	0.429 (0.305-0.603)	9.530 (3.982-22.809)
SVM^h	0.5942	0.460 (0.441-0.480)	0.605 (0.580-0.631)	1.652 (1.098-2.486)	0.758 (0.581-0.989)	2.833 (1.223-6.565)
RFⁱ	0.7622	0.632 (0.616-0.648)	0.715 (0.702-0.727)	3.145 (2.160-4.581)	0.443 (0.291-0.672)	7.625 (3.814-15.242)
Bayesian algorithm	0.6829	0.690 (0.674-0.705)	0.527 (0.513-0.540)	1.616 (1.336-1.954)	0.607 (0.528-0.698)	2.684 (1.935-3.723)
Adaboost^j	0.8037	0.691 (0.675--0.706)	0.797 (0.785-0.808)	3.486 (2.677-4.538)	0.432 (0.280-0.666)	8.242 (4.870-13.947)
DT^k	0.7473	0.881 (0.855-0.903)	0.782 (0.745-0.816)	3.129 (1.099-8.906)	0.493 (0.320-0.758)	6.049 (1.938-18.878)

^aAUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

^bPLR: positive likelihood ratio.

^cNegLR: negative likelihood ratio.

^dDOR: diagnostic odds ratio.

^eGB: gradient boosting.

^fANN: artificial neural network.

^gLR: logistic regression.

^hSVM: support vector machine.

ⁱRF: random forest.

^jAdaBoost: adaptive boosting.

^kDT: decision tree.

Meta-Regression Analysis

In this study, we conducted a meta-regression analysis to explore potential sources of heterogeneity in predictive model performance. We performed regression analysis by including the publication year (whether the study was published after 2023), sample size (whether the sample size was greater than 1000), the presence of external validation, and the application of LR algorithms or deep learning algorithms. Using Meta Disc software, we sequentially excluded factors such as the application of LR algorithms, deep learning algorithms, and publication year. Through meta-regression analysis, we identified the sources of heterogeneity among studies and assessed their impact on diagnostic outcomes. The results showed that sample size significantly influenced heterogeneity among studies, with diagnostic accuracy tending to decrease as sample size increased (regression coefficient=–1.384, P<.001). Additionally, external validation significantly improved diagnostic accuracy, indicating that studies with external validation were more effective in enhancing diagnostic performance (regression coefficient=0.879, P=.003). The steps for the meta-regression are in Multimedia Appendix 4.

Discussion Overview

This research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different ML algorithms in predicting ARDS. A total of 17 studies were reviewed, which identified 64 different ARDS prediction models. The PROBAST evaluation indicated that most of these studies (14/17, 82.4%) showed a high ROB, mainly due to shortcomings in outcome handling and data analysis. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to evaluate ARDS prediction models using multiple effect sizes, including sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, and NegLR. Additionally, we performed a subgroup analysis to compare the predictive accuracy of different ML techniques and explored the sources of heterogeneity among studies.

Clinically, accurate identification and early prediction of ARDS are essential for improving outcomes. Due to limited treatments, research has focused on early detection, with biomarkers and clinical scores like the Lung Injury Prediction Score and Early Acute Lung Injury Score [36]. However, the Lung Injury Prediction Score has a low positive predictive value, and Early Acute Lung Injury Score increases clinical workload without sufficient clinical evidence [37-39].

Biomarkers such as receptors for advanced glycation end products, surfactant protein D, angiopoietin-2, and others are crucial for diagnosis, risk stratification, and identifying ARDS subgroups. Combining angiopoietin-2 with clinical scores improves predictive accuracy. Despite this, biomarkers face clinical challenges like invasiveness and lack of bedside immediacy [40-42]. ML models, especially those using biomarkers, are gaining traction due to their strong predictive performance. However, integrating ML into clinical practice remains difficult due to interpretability issues and lack of physician trust [43,44]. Additionally, although some models have achieved success in research settings, their effectiveness and applicability in real-world clinical environments still require further validation through prospective trials. Future research should focus on overcoming these challenges to facilitate the adoption of ML models in clinical settings, improving patient management.

The subgroup analysis demonstrated that the prediction model using the LR algorithm achieved the highest AUC value, which aligns with the findings reported in a previous study [45]. The reasons for the superior performance of the LR model could be as follows. On the one hand, the dataset used in this study may have been relatively simple or less complex, allowing LR models to perform better compared to more complex models like neural networks. On the other hand, LR models often perform well when the relationships between the predictors and the outcome are linear or nearly linear, which may have been the case in our study.

ANN is a computational model that simulates the interactions of neurons in the brain. It consists of numerous neurons (ie, nodes) interconnected by connections (ie, weights) [46]. ANNs are extensively used in the medical field for biosignal recognition and clinical decision-making. They have been applied in clinical diagnosis for over a decade and have demonstrated the capability to recognize patients more effectively than doctors [46,47]. Our study further demonstrates that ANN algorithms are highly effective in predicting ARDS. RF is a DT-based ML tool adept at handling nonlinearities and missing data, also favored for high-dimensional data analysis, and shows strong predictive performance in this study.

Although AUROC is a commonly used evaluation metric in the field of ML, relying solely on this metric is insufficient to comprehensively assess the overall performance of models. Therefore, this study further examined multiple key metrics across different subgroups. The results showed that the DT model performed best in terms of sensitivity, aiding in the detection rate of positive cases; the Adaboost model demonstrated clear advantages in specificity, exhibiting strong capability in excluding false positives; and the ANN model excelled in DOR, indicating its high diagnostic efficacy in distinguishing between positive and negative cases. These findings highlight the unique strengths of different models in specific clinical applications, suggesting that models should be selected based on specific diagnostic needs in practice to optimize decision support.

Strengths and Limitations

This study’s advantage lies in its inclusion of nearly all recent ARDS prediction model studies and its evaluation of model performance through various effect sizes, rather than relying solely on the AUROC value. This multidimensional evaluation provides a robust basis for future research. Additionally, unlike previous studies, we conducted a subgroup analysis for prediction algorithms used more than 3 times, aiding in the selection of appropriate and high-performance algorithms. This paper used the PROBAST framework to evaluate the ROB and its applicability in studies focused on predictive modeling. While numerous earlier studies used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, commonly used for estimating bias and applicability in diagnostic accuracy research, PROBAST is better suited for the specific needs of predictive modeling [48]. The PROBAST evaluation revealed that the primary sources of bias are the results and statistical analysis. This indicates that while many studies have reported favorable outcomes, quality assessments have often been overlooked. Future researchers should give greater consideration to predictor selection, the timing of predicted outcomes, and sample size when developing research protocols to mitigate high-bias factors.

Although this study explores the establishment of ARDS prediction models, it has several limitations. First, ARDS is a highly heterogeneous syndrome with distinct subtypes (intrapulmonary and extrapulmonary) that differ in pathophysiology and treatment response. However, due to limited studies, this research did not analyze these subgroups separately, which may introduce selection bias by overlooking potential differences in disease progression and prognosis. Subgroup analysis in future studies could enhance risk stratification and treatment precision.

Second, dataset imbalance and overfitting significantly affect model generalizability. The included studies varied greatly—some were single-center, others multicenter; some included general hospitalized patients, while others focused on specific disease populations. This heterogeneity may lead to models that perform well in certain groups but fail to generalize to others. Furthermore, training models on imbalanced datasets may cause overfitting, where the model becomes too tailored to the training data, reducing its ability to perform well on new, unseen data. Addressing dataset imbalance through representative sampling and using regularization techniques to prevent overfitting could improve robustness and generalizability.

Third, external validation is essential for evaluating model reliability [49]. Many included studies lacked external validation, raising concerns about overfitting. Our meta-regression analysis identified external validation as a key source of heterogeneity and showed that models with external validation had better diagnostic accuracy. Prospective validation is essential to evaluate model performance in real-world clinical workflows. Future research should prioritize both external and prospective validation to enhance the robustness and reliability of predictive models. Prospective validation should be prioritized to ensure real-world applicability.

Finally, while subgroup analyses were conducted for predictive algorithms, data limitations prevented a comprehensive assessment of all models. Future research should explore a wider range of models while ensuring balanced datasets to improve clinical utility.

Conclusions

This study evaluates prediction models constructed using various ML algorithms, with results showing that ML demonstrates high performance in ARDS prediction. However, many of the existing models still have limitations. During model development, it is essential to focus on model quality, including reducing bias risk, designing appropriate sample sizes, conducting external validation, and ensuring model interpretability. Additionally, challenges such as physician trust and the need for prospective validation must also be addressed. Given that this study is based on a relatively small sample size, larger scale research is needed in the future to comprehensively assess the performance and generalizability of these models. Future research should focus on standardizing model development, optimizing model performance, and exploring how to better integrate predictive models into clinical practice to improve ARDS diagnosis and risk stratification.

Multimedia Appendix 1

PRISMA checklist.

Multimedia Appendix 2

Search strategy.

Multimedia Appendix 3

Supplementary figures.

Multimedia Appendix 4

Meta-regression.

Abbreviations

AdaBoost

adaptive boosting

ANN

artificial neural network

ARDS

acute respiratory distress syndrome

AUROC

area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

DOR

diagnostic odds ratio

decision tree

ICU

intensive care unit

logistic regression

machine learning

NegLR

negative likelihood ratio

PLR

positive likelihood ratio

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PROBAST

prediction model risk of bias assessment tool

random forest

ROB

risk of bias

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82472184), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2501800), the Heilongjiang Provincial Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China (LBH-Q19137), and the Heilongjiang Province Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (JQ2021H002). This manuscript did not use generative artificial intelligence (AI; such as ChatGPT or other language models) for content creation, data analysis, or research design. The manuscript underwent language polishing before submission, using AI tools (such as ChatGPT) to optimize grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and language fluency. We assure that the use of AI was limited to language refinement and did not modify or influence the research content, analysis results, or conclusions of the manuscript.

Search strategy, study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by JXY and SYZ. SPC participated in the design of the study. HLW and JBZ made supportive contributions to this work.

None declared.

Bellani

Laffey

Pham

Fan

Brochard

Esteban

Gattinoni

van Haren

Larsson

McAuley

Ranieri

Rubenfeld

Thompson

Wrigge

Slutsky

Pesenti

LUNG SAFE Investigators ESICM Trials Group

Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries

J Am Med Assoc 2016 315 8 788 800

10.1001/jama.2016.0291

26903337

2492877

Grasselli

Calfee

Camporota

Poole

Amato

MBP

Antonelli

Arabi

Baroncelli

Beitler

Bellani

Bellingan

Blackwood

Bos

LDJ

Brochard

Brodie

Burns

KEA

Combes

D'Arrigo

De Backer

Demoule

Einav

Fan

Ferguson

Frat

Gattinoni

Guérin

Herridge

Hodgson

Hough

Jaber

Juffermans

Karagiannidis

Kesecioglu

Kwizera

Laffey

Mancebo

Matthay

McAuley

Mercat

Meyer

Moss

Munshi

Myatra

Ng Gong

Papazian

Patel

Pellegrini

Perner

Pesenti

Piquilloud

Qiu

Ranieri

Riviello

Slutsky

Stapleton

Summers

Thompson

Valente Barbas

Villar

Ware

Weiss

Zampieri

Azoulay

Cecconi

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Taskforce on ARDS

ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies

Intensive Care Med 2023 49 7 727 759

10.1007/s00134-023-07050-7

37326646

10.1007/s00134-023-07050-7

PMC10354163

Rasool

Bunterngchit

Tiejian

Islam

Jiang

Improved machine learning-based predictive models for breast cancer diagnosis

Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022 19 6 3211

10.3390/ijerph19063211

35328897

ijerph19063211

PMC8949437

Tang

Zhang

A time series driven model for early sepsis prediction based on transformer module

BMC Med Res Methodol 2024 24 1 23

10.1186/s12874-023-02138-6

38273257

10.1186/s12874-023-02138-6

PMC10809699

Drudi

Mollura

Lehman

Barbieri

A reinforcement learning model for optimal treatment strategies in intensive care: assessment of the role of cardiorespiratory features

IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol 2024 5 806 815

10.1109/OJEMB.2024.3367236

39559781

PMC11573419

Ding

Zou

Distilling the knowledge from large-language model for health event prediction

Sci Rep 2024 14 1 30675

10.1038/s41598-024-75331-2

39730390

10.1038/s41598-024-75331-2

PMC11680798

Ghanvatkar

Rajan

Evaluating explanations from AI algorithms for clinical decision-making: a social science-based approach

IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2024 28 7 4269 4280

10.1109/JBHI.2024.3393719

38662559

Choi

Coyner

Kalpathy-Cramer

Chiang

Campbell

Introduction to machine learning, neural networks, and deep learning

Transl Vis Sci Technol 2020 9 2 14

10.1167/tvst.9.2.14

32704420

TVST-19-2007

PMC7347027

Deo

Machine learning in medicine

Circulation 2015 132 20 1920 1930

10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.001593

26572668

CIRCULATIONAHA.115.001593

PMC5831252

Wei

Zhang

Shen

Yin

Cong

Zeng

Zhu

Establishment and validation of predictive model of ARDS in critically ill patients

J Transl Med 2025 23 1 64

10.1186/s12967-024-06054-1

39806409

10.1186/s12967-024-06054-1

PMC11730794

Tran

Joseph

Phan

Grau

Farmery

A systematic review of machine learning models for management, prediction and classification of ARDS

Respir Res 2024 25 1 232

10.1186/s12931-024-02834-x

38834976

10.1186/s12931-024-02834-x

PMC11151485

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

PRISMA Group

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

PLoS Med 2009 6 7 e1000097

10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

19621072

PMC2707599

Moons

KGM

Altman

Reitsma

Ioannidis

JPA

Macaskill

Steyerberg

Vickers

Ransohoff

Collins

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration

Ann Intern Med 2015 162 1 W1 W73

10.7326/M14-0698

25560730

2088542

Moons

KGM

Wolff

Riley

Whiting

Westwood

Collins

Reitsma

Kleijnen

Mallett

PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration

Ann Intern Med 2019 170 1 W1 W33

10.7326/M18-1377

30596876

2719962

Steyerberg

Vickers

Cook

Gerds

Gonen

Obuchowski

Pencina

Kattan

Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures

Epidemiology 2010 21 1 128 138

10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2

20010215

00001648-201001000-00022

PMC3575184

Zamora

Abraira

Muriel

Khan

Coomarasamy

Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data

BMC Med Res Methodol 2006 6 31

10.1186/1471-2288-6-31

16836745

1471-2288-6-31

PMC1552081

Clephas

PRD

Heesen

Interpretation of meta-analyses

Interv Pain Med 2022 1 Suppl 2 100120

10.1016/j.inpm.2022.100120

39239131

S2772-5944(22)00116-9

PMC11372922

Zhou

Feng

Mei

Tang

Xing

Qin

Zhang

Gao

A deep learning model for predicting COVID-19 ARDS in critically ill patients

Front Med (Lausanne) 2023 10 1221711

10.3389/fmed.2023.1221711

37564041

PMC10411521

Zou

Ren

Huang

Jiang

Zeng

Zhang

Peng

Lü

Tang

The role of artificial neural networks in prediction of severe acute pancreatitis associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective study

Medicine (Baltimore) 2023 102 29 e34399

10.1097/MD.0000000000034399

37478242

00005792-202307210-00037

PMC10662815

Zhang

Pang

Early prediction of acute respiratory distress syndrome complicated by acute pancreatitis based on four machine learning models

Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2023 78 100215

10.1016/j.clinsp.2023.100215

37196588

S1807-5932(23)00051-0

PMC10199163

Zhang

Chang

Ding

Zhu

Zhao

Shi

To establish an early prediction model for acute respiratory distress syndrome in severe acute pancreatitis using machine learning algorithm

J Clin Med 2023 12 5 1718

10.3390/jcm12051718

36902504

jcm12051718

PMC10002486

Wang

Cai

Zhang

Prediction of acute respiratory distress syndrome in traumatic brain injury patients based on machine learning algorithms

Medicina (Kaunas) 2023 59 1 171

10.3390/medicina59010171

36676795

medicina59010171

PMC9864532

Singhal

Garg

Yang

Tabaie

Wong

Mohammed

Chinthala

Kadaria

Sodhi

Holder

Esper

Blum

Davis

Clifford

Martin

Kamaleswaran

eARDS: A multi-center validation of an interpretable machine learning algorithm of early onset acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) among critically ill adults with COVID-19

PLoS One 2021 16 9 e0257056

10.1371/journal.pone.0257056

34559819

PONE-D-21-13104

PMC8462682

Ling

Yang

Qin

Risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in community-acquired pneumonia patients: use of an artificial neural network model

Emerg Med Int 2023 2023 2631779

10.1155/2023/2631779

36816327

PMC9929212

Marshall

Narendrula

Wang

De Souza Vale

Jeong

Krishnan

Yang

A machine learning algorithm to predict hypoxic respiratory failure and risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by utilizing features derived from electrocardiogram (ECG) and routinely clinical data

medRxiv 2022

10.1101/2022.11.14.22282274

Lam

Thapa

Maharjan

Rahmani

Tso

Singh

Casie Chetty

Mao

Multitask learning with recurrent neural networks for acute respiratory distress syndrome prediction using only electronic health record data: model development and validation study

JMIR Med Inform 2022 10 6 e36202

10.2196/36202

35704370

v10i6e36202

PMC9244659

Bai

Xia

Huang

Chen

Zhan

Using machine learning for the early prediction of sepsis-associated ARDS in the ICU and identification of clinical phenotypes with differential responses to treatment

Front Physiol 2022 13 1050849

10.3389/fphys.2022.1050849

36579020

1050849

PMC9791185

Sun

Gao

Chen

Yang

Tang

Risk factors analysis of COVID-19 patients with ARDS and prediction based on machine learning

Sci Rep 2021 11 1 2933

10.1038/s41598-021-82492-x

33536460

10.1038/s41598-021-82492-x

PMC7858607

Lam

Tso

Green-Saxena

Pellegrini

Iqbal

Evans

Hoffman

Calvert

Mao

Das

Semisupervised deep learning techniques for predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome from time-series clinical data: model development and validation study

JMIR Form Res 2021 5 9 e28028

10.2196/28028

34398784

v5i9e28028

PMC8447921

Izadi

Gianfrancesco

Aguirre

Strangfeld

Mateus

Hyrich

Gossec

Carmona

Lawson-Tovey

Kearsley-Fleet

Schaefer

Seet

Schmajuk

Jacobsohn

Katz

Rush

Al-Emadi

Sparks

Hsu

Patel

Wise

Gilbert

Duarte-García

Alí

Valenzuela-Almada

Ugarte-Gil

Ribeiro

SLE

de Oliveira Marinho

de Azevedo Valadares

Giuseppe

Hasseli

Richter

Pfeil

Schmeiser

Isnardi

Reyes Torres

Alle

Saurit

Zanetti

Carrara

Labreuche

Barnetche

Herasse

Plassart

Santos

Rodrigues

Robinson

Machado

Sirotich

Liew

Hausmann

Sufka

Grainger

Bhana

Costello

Wallace

Yazdany

Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry

Development of a prediction model for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with rheumatic diseases: results from the global rheumatology alliance registry

ACR Open Rheumatol 2022 4 10 872 882

10.1002/acr2.11481

35869686

PMC9350083

Fei

Gao

Prediction and evaluation of the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome following severe acute pancreatitis using an artificial neural network algorithm model

HPB (Oxford) 2019 21 7 891 897

10.1016/j.hpb.2018.11.009

30591306

S1365-182X(18)34560-X

Zhang

Qian

Zhang

Meng

Huang

Fan

Zhang

Wang

Yuan

Chen

Zhao

Ruan

Tree-based ensemble machine learning models in the prediction of acute respiratory distress syndrome following cardiac surgery: a multicenter cohort study

J Transl Med 2024 22 1 772

10.1186/s12967-024-05395-1

39148090

10.1186/s12967-024-05395-1

PMC11325832

Lin

Sun

Zhang

Nie

Machine learning-based model for predicting the occurrence and mortality of nonpulmonary sepsis-associated ARDS

Sci Rep 2024 14 1 28240

10.1038/s41598-024-79899-7

39548234

10.1038/s41598-024-79899-7

PMC11568264

Wang

Tang

Yuan

Zhang

Developing and evaluating a machine-learning-based algorithm to predict the incidence and severity of ARDS with continuous non-invasive parameters from ordinary monitors and ventilators

Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2023 230 107328

10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.107328

36640602

S0169-2607(22)00709-X

Bolón-Canedo

Sánchez-Maroño

Alonso-Betanzos

A review of feature selection methods on synthetic data

Knowl Inf Syst 2012 34 3 483 519

10.1007/s10115-012-0487-8

Yadav

Thompson

Gajic

Fifty years of research in ARDS. Is acute respiratory distress syndrome a preventable disease?

Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017 195 6 725 736

10.1164/rccm.201609-1767CI

28040987

Trillo-Alvarez

Cartin-Ceba

Kor

Kojicic

Kashyap

Thakur

Herasevich

Malinchoc

Gajic

Acute lung injury prediction score: derivation and validation in a population-based sample

Eur Respir J 2011 37 3 604 609

10.1183/09031936.00036810

20562130

09031936.00036810

Gajic

Dabbagh

Park

Adesanya

Chang

Hou

Anderson

Hoth

Mikkelsen

Gentile

Gong

Talmor

Bajwa

Watkins

Festic

Yilmaz

Iscimen

Kaufman

Esper

Sadikot

Douglas

Sevransky

Malinchoc

U.S. Critical IllnessInjury Trials Group: Lung Injury Prevention Study Investigators (USCIITG-LIPS)

Early identification of patients at risk of acute lung injury: evaluation of lung injury prediction score in a multicenter cohort study

Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011 183 4 462 470

10.1164/rccm.201004-0549OC

20802164

201004-0549OC

PMC3056224

Levitt

Bedi

Calfee

Gould

Matthay

Identification of early acute lung injury at initial evaluation in an acute care setting prior to the onset of respiratory failure

Chest 2009 135 4 936 943

10.1378/chest.08-2346

19188549

S0012-3692(09)60244-0

PMC2758305

Jabaudon

Berthelin

Pranal

Roszyk

Godet

Faure

Chabanne

Eisenmann

Lautrette

Belville

Blondonnet

Cayot

Gillart

Pascal

Skrzypczak

Souweine

Blanchon

Sapin

Pereira

Constantin

Receptor for advanced glycation end-products and ARDS prediction: a multicentre observational study

Sci Rep 2018 8 1 2603

10.1038/s41598-018-20994-x

29422518

10.1038/s41598-018-20994-x

PMC5805783

Ware

Koyama

Zhao

Janz

Wickersham

Bernard

May

Calfee

Matthay

Biomarkers of lung epithelial injury and inflammation distinguish severe sepsis patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Crit Care 2013 17 5 R253

10.1186/cc13080

24156650

cc13080

PMC4056313

van der Heijden

van Nieuw Amerongen

Koolwijk

van Hinsbergh

VWM

Groeneveld

ABJ

Angiopoietin-2, permeability oedema, occurrence and severity of ALI/ARDS in septic and non-septic critically ill patients

Thorax 2008 63 10 903 909

10.1136/thx.2007.087387

18559364

thx.2007.087387

Kelly

Karthikesalingam

Suleyman

Corrado

King

Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence

BMC Med 2019 17 1 195

10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2

31665002

10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2

PMC6821018

Alkhanbouli

Matar Abdulla Almadhaani

Alhosani

Simsekler

MCE

The role of explainable artificial intelligence in disease prediction: a systematic literature review and future research directions

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2025 25 1 110

10.1186/s12911-025-02944-6

40038704

10.1186/s12911-025-02944-6

PMC11877768

Christodoulou

Collins

Steyerberg

Verbakel

Van Calster

A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models

J Clin Epidemiol 2019 110 12 22

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004

30763612

S0895-4356(18)31081-3

Serghiou

Rough

Deep learning for epidemiologists: an introduction to neural networks

Am J Epidemiol 2023 192 11 1904 1916

10.1093/aje/kwad107

37139570

7151089

Nagendran

Chen

Lovejoy

Gordon

Komorowski

Harvey

Topol

Ioannidis

JPA

Collins

Maruthappu

Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies

Br Med J 2020 368 m689

10.1136/bmj.m689

32213531

PMC7190037

Whiting

Rutjes

AWS

Westwood

Mallett

Deeks

Reitsma

Leeflang

MMG

Sterne

JAC

Bossuyt

PMM

QUADAS-2 Group

QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

Ann Intern Med 2011 155 8 529 536

10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009

22007046

155/8/529

Siontis

GCM

Tzoulaki

Castaldi

Ioannidis

JPA

External validation of new risk prediction models is infrequent and reveals worse prognostic discrimination

J Clin Epidemiol 2015 68 1 25 34

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.007

25441703

S0895-4356(14)00353-9