Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Neurol.

Sec. Headache and Neurogenic Pain

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1632682

This article is part of the Research TopicInnovative Approaches to Neuralgia: Mechanisms and Treatment DevelopmentView all 20 articles

Evaluating the efficacy of machine learning in predicting postherpetic neuralgia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Provisionally accepted
  • 1First College of Clinical Medicine, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China
  • 2Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The prediction of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is of great clinical significance. PHN prediction based on machine learning have received extensive attention in recent years. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of machine learning in PHN prediction and provide guidance for the future models.The system retrieved the relevant literatures published in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment of the database to May 2025. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. According to the heterogeneity, the fixed-effect or the random-effect model was selected for data synthesis. The potential sources of heterogeneity were further explored through subgroup analysis, sensitivity tests and meta-regression. Funnel plots and Deeks' tests were used to evaluate the possible publication biases.The main meta-analysis included 41 models from 14 studies. The results showed that machine learning demonstrated excellent performance in predicting PHN (sensitivity: 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.86; specificity: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.79-0.88; area under the curve: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.87-0.92). Meta-regression analysis indicates that the source of the data set, model selection, and the choice of predictors are the main reasons leading to heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis showed that the training set model outperformed the validation set model. Logistic regression and other machine learning had varying strengths and weaknesses. Serum data or omics analysis did not significantly enhance model performance.Machine learning represents a promising approach for the prediction of PHN. However, most of the existing models face issues like lack of external validation, overfitting, and insufficient reporting standardization. This has raised doubts about whether the current PHN prediction models can still maintain a high prediction accuracy when extended to external data. To improve future models, we recommend conducting strict external validation, clearly reporting cutoff values (balanced, positive, and negative), and adhering to international predictive model reporting standards. When applicable, ensemble learning and pain trajectory analyses should also be considered.

Keywords: machine learning, postherpetic neuralgia, Herpes Zoster, Prediction model, Logistic regression

Received: 21 May 2025; Accepted: 01 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Lin, Wang, Ma, JU, Cao and Lin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Zheng Lin, First College of Clinical Medicine, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China
Yi Cao, First College of Clinical Medicine, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China
Ping Lin, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.