ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Comparative analysis of clinical feature-based machine learning models for predicting myofascial pelvic pain syndrome: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Assessment of Males with Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: An Up-to-Date UPOINTS-Based Narrative Mapping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myofascial pelvic pain syndrome (MPPS) is a common but often underdiagnosed cause of chronic pelvic pain in women, significantly affecting quality of life. Early and accurate identification of patients at risk is essential for improving treatment outcomes and reducing the clinical burden. Objective: This study aimed to develop an effective machine learning-based prediction model for MPPS among Chinese women to assist in early diagnosis and personalized treatment. Methods: A total of 1,136 women diagnosed with MPPS and 1,448 healthy women who underwent pelvic floor screening during the same period were included, yielding 2,584 samples. Six machine learning algorithms-logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), and adaptive boosting (AdaBoost)-were trained using 5-fold cross-validation and grid search. Model performance was evaluated using the confusion matrix, precision, recall, F1 score, overall accuracy, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: The accuracies of the six models were 0.77, 0.80, 0.91, 0.89, 0.88, and 0.81, respectively. The average area under the ROC curves (AUCs) were 0.670, 0.672, 0.956, 0.951, 0.952, and 0.836, respectively. Among the models, RF achieved the best performance for predicting MPPS, while XGBoost and LightGBM performed slightly lower, with all three models having AUCs above 0.95. Conclusion: Machine learning models, particularly the random forest algorithm, demonstrated strong potential for accurately predicting MPPS, supporting early diagnosis and enabling personalized clinical decision-making for women affected by this condition.
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.