Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35927426›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2022

Clinical use of artificial intelligence in endometriosis: a scoping review.

Brintha Sivajohan, Mohamed Elgendi, Carlo Menon, Catherine Allaire, Paul Yong, Mohamed A Bedaiwy

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Exploring endometriosis through 3DMaterials today. Bio · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Brintha Sivajohan *Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Mohamed Elgendi *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1831-0202
Carlo MenonBiomedical and Mobile Health Technology Laboratory, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2309-9977
Catherine AllaireDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Paul YongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mohamed A BedaiwyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Mohamed.Bedaiwy@cw.bc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endometriosis is a chronic, debilitating, gynecologic condition with a non-specific clinical presentation. Globally, patients can experience diagnostic delays of ~6 to 12 years, which significantly hinders adequate management and places a significant financial burden on patients and the healthcare system. Through artificial intelligence (AI), it is possible to create models that can extract data patterns to act as inputs for developing interventions with predictive and diagnostic accuracies that are superior to conventional methods and current tools used in standards of care. This literature review explored the use of AI methods to address different clinical problems in endometriosis. Approximately 1309 unique records were found across four databases; among those, 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were eligible if they involved an AI approach or model to explore endometriosis pathology, diagnostics, prediction, or management and if they reported evaluation metrics (sensitivity and specificity) after validating their models. Only articles accessible in English were included in this review. Logistic regression was the most popular machine learning method, followed by decision tree algorithms, random forest, and support vector machines. Approximately 44.4% (n = 16) of the studies analyzed the predictive capabilities of AI approaches in patients with endometriosis, while 47.2% (n = 17) explored diagnostic capabilities, and 8.33% (n = 3) used AI to improve disease understanding. Models were built using different data types, including biomarkers, clinical variables, metabolite spectra, genetic variables, imaging data, mixed methods, and lesion characteristics. Regardless of the AI-based endometriosis application (either diagnostic or predictive), pooled sensitivities ranged from 81.7 to 96.7%, and pooled specificities ranged between 70.7 and 91.6%. Overall, AI models displayed good diagnostic and predictive capacity in detecting endometriosis using simple classification scenarios (i.e., differentiating between cases and controls), showing promising directions for AI in assessing endometriosis in the near future. This timely review highlighted an emerging area of interest in endometriosis and AI. It also provided recommendations for future research in this field to improve the reproducibility of results and comparability between models, and further test the capacity of these models to enhance diagnosis, prediction, and management in endometriosis patients.

Identifiers

PMID35927426
PMCPMC9352729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.