Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38356959›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024

Predicting polycystic ovary syndrome with machine learning algorithms from electronic health records.

Zahra Zad, Victoria S Jiang, Amber T Wolf, Taiyao Wang, J Jojo Cheng, Ioannis Ch Paschalidis, Shruthi Mahalingaiah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Zahra Zad *Division of Systems Engineering, Center for Information and Systems Engineering (CISE), Boston University, Brookline, MA, United States.
Victoria S Jiang *Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Amber T WolfIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.
Taiyao WangDivision of Systems Engineering, Center for Information and Systems Engineering (CISE), Boston University, Brookline, MA, United States.
J Jojo ChengDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Ioannis Ch PaschalidisDivision of Systems Engineering, Center for Information and Systems Engineering (CISE), Boston University, Brookline, MA, United States.
Shruthi MahalingaiahDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

Optimizing and Learning Strategies for Protein Docking R01GM135930 · NIGMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI VAKILI, PIROOZ · 2019 to 2021
$561k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM135930
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Predictive models have been used to aid early diagnosis of PCOS, though existing models are based on small sample sizes and limited to fertility clinic populations. We built a predictive model using machine learning algorithms based on an outpatient population at risk for PCOS to predict risk and facilitate earlier diagnosis, particularly among those who meet diagnostic criteria but have not received a diagnosis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study from a SafetyNet hospital's electronic health records (EHR) from 2003-2016. The study population included 30,601 women aged 18-45 years without concurrent endocrinopathy who had any visit to Boston Medical Center for primary care, obstetrics and gynecology, endocrinology, family medicine, or general internal medicine. Four prediction outcomes were assessed for PCOS. The first outcome was PCOS ICD-9 diagnosis with additional model outcomes of algorithm-defined PCOS. The latter was based on Rotterdam criteria and merging laboratory values, radiographic imaging, and ICD data from the EHR to define irregular menstruation, hyperandrogenism, and polycystic ovarian morphology on ultrasound. Results: We developed predictive models using four machine learning methods: logistic regression, supported vector machine, gradient boosted trees, and random forests. Hormone values (follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, estradiol, and sex hormone binding globulin) were combined to create a multilayer perceptron score using a neural network classifier. Prediction of PCOS prior to clinical diagnosis in an out-of-sample test set of patients achieved an average AUC of 85%, 81%, 80%, and 82%, respectively in Models I, II, III and IV. Significant positive predictors of PCOS diagnosis across models included hormone levels and obesity; negative predictors included gravidity and positive bHCG. Conclusion: Machine learning algorithms were used to predict PCOS based on a large at-risk population. This approach may guide early detection of PCOS within EHR-interfaced populations to facilitate counseling and interventions that may reduce long-term health consequences. Our model illustrates the potential benefits of an artificial intelligence-enabled provider assistance tool that can be integrated into the EHR to reduce delays in diagnosis. However, model validation in other hospital-based populations is necessary.

Indexed as

Polycystic Ovary SyndromeAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansLuteinizing HormoneMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesLuteinizing Hormoneartificial intelligencedisease predictionmachine learningpolycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)predictive model

Identifiers

PMID38356959
PMCPMC10866556

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.