ArticleDigital health
Machine learning in female urinary incontinence: A scoping review.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence After Colpocleisis Using Clinical and Pelvic Floor Ultrasound Parameters: Development and Internal Validation of a Multimodal Model.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Analysis of Logistic Regression and Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence or Symptomatic Worsening Following Pelvic Floor Reconstruction: A Multicenter Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Article
- The Landscape of Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Development and Internal Validation of a Predictive Model for Deep Venous Thrombosis Following Colpocleisis in Elderly Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Digital Twin of the Female Pelvic Floor.Open journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and Hypothesis: The aim was to conduct a scoping review of the literature on the use of machine learning (ML) in female urinary incontinence (UI) over the last decade. Methods: A systematic search was performed among the Medline, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science databases using the following keywords: [Urinary incontinence] and [(Machine learning) or (Predict) or (Prediction model)]. Eligible studies were considered to have applied ML model to explore different management processes of female UI. Data analyzed included the field of application, type of ML, input variables, and results of model validation. Results: A total of 798 papers were identified while 23 finally met the inclusion criteria. The vast majority of studies applied logistic regression to establish models (91.3%, 21/23). Most frequently ML was applied to predict postpartum UI (39.1%, 9/23), followed by de novo incontinence after pelvic floor surgery (34.8%, 8/23).There are also three papers using ML models to predict treatment outcomes and three papers using ML models to assist in diagnosis. Variables for modeling included demographic characteristics, clinical data, pelvic floor ultrasound, and urodynamic parameters. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve of these models fluctuated from 0.56 to 0.95, and only 11 studies reported sensitivity and specificity, with sensitivity ranging from 20% to 96.2% and specificity from 59.8% to 94.5%. Conclusion: Machine learning modeling demonstrated good predictive and diagnostic abilities in some aspects of female UI, showing its promising prospects in near future. However, the lack of standardization and transparency in the validation and evaluation of the models, and the insufficient external validation greatly diminished the applicability and reproducibility, thus a focus on filling this gap is strongly recommended for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.