ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
MOCRA: A multi-algorithm clinical decision support system for the early detection of ovarian cancer.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 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.
- Machine learning in bleeding risk assessment for low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux: a predictive model study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
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
backgroundEarly and accurate triage of adnexal masses remains challenging due to the heterogeneous presentation of ovarian cancer and the fragmented nature of existing diagnostic tools. While several validated algorithms exist-such as NICE NG12, HSE, IOTA Simple Rules, O-RADS v2022, RMI2, and ROMA-each evaluates different aspects of risk, and none provide an integrated, clinically actionable output. We developed MOCRA (Multivariate Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment), a deterministic, rule-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) designed to harmonize these tools into a unified risk stratification.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center diagnostic accuracy study included 68 analyzable patients with adnexal masses. MOCRA encoded six validated diagnostic algorithms using object-oriented architecture and combined their outputs through transparent precedence rules to produce a four-level risk classification (low, intermediate, high, indeterminate). Diagnostic performance was evaluated against physician-confirmed outcomes (histopathology or ≥ 6-month follow-up). Functional reliability was assessed using predefined test cases, and usability was evaluated by 15 gynecologic oncologists using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ).
resultsAmong 68 patients (7 malignant, 61 benign), MOCRA achieved an accuracy of 97.1%, sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 96.7%, F1-score 87.5%, and AUC 0.984. No malignancies occurred in the MOCRA low-risk category. Compared with single algorithms, MOCRA reduced false negatives while maintaining high specificity by cross-validating symptom, biomarker, and ultrasound signals. Functional testing confirmed deterministic and stable performance (mean reliability 4.8/5). Usability ratings were uniformly positive (overall PSSUQ score 4.6/5), with clinicians highlighting the interpretability of the four-tier risk level and the clarity provided by side-by-side algorithm outputs.
conclusionsMOCRA demonstrates strong diagnostic performance and high clinician usability in this pilot evaluation, suggesting that deterministic integration of multiple validated algorithms can improve consistency and reduce missed high-risk cases. However, the small, single-center dataset-particularly the limited number of malignant cases-warrants cautious interpretation. Larger multicenter and prospective studies with extended follow-up are needed to confirm generalizability and real-world clinical impact.
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.