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

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.