ArticleScientific reports2025
Detection of obstetric anal sphincter injuries using machine learning-assisted impedance spectroscopy: a prospective, comparative, multicentre clinical study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Transperineal and Endoanal Ultrasound in Diagnosis and Management of Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries (OASIs): A Narrative Review from a Gynecologic Perspective.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries: A Urogynecologic Perspective on Detection and Diagnosis.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Tacit Knowledge Integration in Midwifery: Policy Implications for Improving Healthcare Outcomes.International nursing review · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the clinical performance and safety of the ONIRY system for obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) detection versus three-dimensional endoanal ultrasound (EAUS). A prospective, comparative, multicentre, international study. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and Spain. 152 women between the first moments up to 8 weeks after vaginal delivery. Participants underwent EAUS and were allocated to groups based on OASIS classification: A (no perineal tear), B (1st or 2nd degree tear), or C (3rd or 4th degree, anal sphincters affected). Electric impedance was measured in the anal canal using the ONIRY system. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic outcome of impedance spectroscopy versus EAUS. Adverse events were collected. Part II involved in silico modelling and 10-time 10-fold cross-validation for automated analysis. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. 30 women were allocated to group A, 61 to group B, and 61 to group C. The diagnostic outcome was determined for 147 participants. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the ML-assisted impedance spectroscopy were 87.0 ± 0.5%, 90.6 ± 2.0%, and 84.6 ± 1.9%, respectively, compared with EAUS. After data cleaning, the performance metrics of the proposed final ML model for ONIRY were: 90.0 ± 0.4%, 90.0 ± 1.2%, and 90.0 ± 0.7%, respectively. No adverse device effects or deficiencies were observed. By enabling early identification of sphincter injuries, ML-assisted impedance spectroscopy facilitates timely diagnosis and intervention, potentially reducing long-term complications such as faecal incontinence. Its rapid, bedside application in obstetric settings supports immediate postpartum care, complementing digital rectal examination and optimizing clinical decision-making.
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.