ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Development and Validation of Risk Assessment Model for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Based on A Retrospective Study with Machine Learning Algorithms.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of early pelvic floor muscle rehabilitation combined with continuity of care on pelvic floor electromyography and postpartum depression in women with postpartum uterine prolapse.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe aimed to develop and validate a clinically applicable risk assessment model for identifying women at a high risk of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) based on a retrospective practice.
methodsThis study enrolled patients with and without POP between January 2019 and December 2021. Clinical data were collected and machine learning models were applied, such as multilayer perceptron, logistic regression, random forest (RF), light gradient boosting machine and extreme gradient boosting. Two datasets were constructed, one comprising all variables and the other excluding physical examination variables. Two versions of the machine learning model were developed. One was for professional doctors, and the other was for community-health providers. The area under the curve (AUC) and its confidence interval (CI), accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to evaluate the model's performance. The Shapley Additive Explanations method was used to visualize and interpret the model output.
resultsA total of 16,416 women were recruited, with 8,314 and 8,102 in the POP and non-POP groups respectively. Eighty-seven variables were recorded. Among all candidate models, the RF model with 13 variables showed the best performance, with an AUC of 0.806 (95% CI 0.793-0.817), accuracy of 0.723, F1 of 0.731, sensitivity of 0.742, and specificity of 0.703. Excluding the physical examination variables, the RF model with 11 variables showed an AUC, accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.716, 0.652, 0.688, 0.757, and 0.545 respectively.
conclusionsWe constructed a clinically applicable risk warning system that will help clinicians to identify women at a high risk of POP.
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.