TABLE IV. Benchmarking Table for Systematic Reviews for COVID-19 ARDS.
| SN | Authors | Nagendran et al. [13] | Roberts et al. [14] | Wynants et al. [15] | Bao et al. [12] | Albahari et al. [11] | Montazeri et al. [16] | Suri et al. |
| Dates | Attributes | February 2020 | October 2020 | April 2020 | June 2020 | June 2020 | April 2021 | Proposed 2021 |
| 1 | ROBINS | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 2 | PROBAST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3 | AP(ai)Bias Ranking | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 4 | AP(ai)Bias interpretation | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 5 | PRISMA | 91 | 45 | 27 | 13 | 11 | 44 | 89 |
| 6 | Study Considered | 91 | 45 | 27 | 13 | 11 | 44 | 42 |
| 7 | References | 41 | 84 | 71 | 30 | 109 | 80 | 89 |
| 8 | Patho section | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 9.1 | Recommendations – R1 | Transparency | Input data | CRF | Multiethnic | MCDA | Fine-tuning | Data Size |
| 9.2 | Recommendations – R2 | High Quality | Robust training | PTC | - | AHP | Data augm | Clinical Validate |
| 9.3 | Recommendations – R3 | - | Reproducibility | VTEM | - | - | - | IIV |
| 9.4 | Recommendations – R4 | - | High Q doc | - | - | - | - | Comorbidity |
| 9.5 | Recommendations – R5 | - | Peer review | - | - | - | - | Risk Granularity |
| 9.6 | Recommendations – R6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Reproducible |
| 10 | Segmentation | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 11 | AI arch layout | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 12 | Performance of AI studies | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
*CRF: Conventional risk factor consists of age, body temperature, and (respiratory) signs and symptoms; for prognostic models, age, sex, C reactive protein, lactic dehydrogenase, lymphocyte count, and potentially features derived from CT scoring; PTC: Point the challenges in design; VTEM: validate the existing models; IIV: Inter- and intra-observer.