ArticleDigital health
An ultrasound-based machine learning model for predicting pelvic adhesions: A SHAP-enhanced XGBoost approach.
Article in Digital health. 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study is the first to develop and evaluate a machine learning (ML) model for predicting pelvic adhesions based on ultrasound features, utilizing the SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) framework for interpretability analysis. Methods: This prospective study included 220 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and preoperative ultrasound assessments at our hospital between April 2023 and June 2024. Patients were randomly assigned to training and validation sets. A Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator regression was used to identify independent risk factors, followed by incorporation into an Extreme Gradient Boosting prediction model. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, and a decision curve analysis. Results: The included patients were randomly divided into a training set and a validation set in a 7:3 ratio. The final model included four predictors-obstructed ovarian activity, surgical history, endometriosis, and gynecological inflammation-and demonstrated strong discriminatory performance, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.869 and 0.846 in the training and validation sets, respectively. The ML model demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.946 and a specificity of 0.597 in the training set, while in the validation set, it achieved a sensitivity of 1.000 and a specificity of 0.600. Calibration analyses showed good agreement between predicted and observed outcomes. The model exhibited high clinical utility. SHAP analysis revealed that endometriosis contributed most significantly to the predictions, followed by surgical history, obstructed ovarian activity, and gynecological inflammation. Conclusions: The interpretable ML model developed in this study demonstrates strong predictive performance for assessing the risk of pelvic adhesions in patients prior to surgery. It can be utilized to accurately identify high-risk patients before the procedure, enabling the implementation of appropriate measures during surgery to reduce the occurrence of postoperative pelvic adhesions.
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.