Deep learning models show high sensitivity and specificity for SLE and lupus nephritis diagnosisMachine Learning Models Show Promise for Diagnosing Lupus Conditions

BACKGROUND: Early and accurate diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and its organ involvement is essential. Previous reviews of machine learning (ML) in SLE combined heterogeneous tasks and validation strategies and may have overinterpreted model performance. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML and deep learning (DL) models for 3 clinically distinct SLE-related tasks: SLE classification or diagnosis, lupus nephritis (LN) diagnosis, and neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) discrimination. We also assessed methodological quality and certainty of evidence. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched from January 2014 to April 2026. Eligible peer-reviewed diagnostic accuracy studies developed or validated ML or DL models for 1 of the 3 prespecified tasks, used an accepted reference standard, and provided data for a 2×2 contingency table. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment were used to pool sensitivity and specificity. We reported 95% prediction intervals (PIs), assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Artificial Intelligence tool (QUADAS-AI; Viknesh Sounderajah [Imperial College London]), and evaluated certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework for diagnostic test accuracy. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included: 17 for SLE classification, 5 for LN diagnosis, and 7 for NPSLE discrimination. In the primary task-stratified analysis, pooled sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94; 95% PI 0.56-0.99), and pooled specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96; 95% PI 0.69-0.99), with low heterogeneity (²=23.9% and 22.9%, respectively). DL models showed a sensitivity of 0.93 and specificity of 0.95, compared with 0.88 and 0.94 for traditional ML models. Certainty of evidence was high for most analyses but low for LN diagnosis because of inconsistency and imprecision. All studies were retrospective, and only 9 of 29 (31%) performed independent external validation. Overall risk of bias was high or unclear in 22 of 29 (75.9%) studies. No study reported model calibration, decision-curve analysis, or net clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: ML models showed promising diagnostic accuracy across 3 distinct SLE-related tasks, but wide PIs, limited external validation, and pervasive risk of bias restrict conclusions about real-world generalizability. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized tasks and reference standards, independent external validation, and formal assessment of calibration and clinical utility are required before clinical implementation.