ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2026
Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy using the bayes theorem and neural network: a validation of a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of neural networks and Naïve Bayes models in diagnosing ectopic pregnancy, using clinical data, hCG levels, and transvaginal ultrasound findings from a real dataset. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study based on a public dataset of 2,495 first-trimester pregnant women with confirmed pregnancy under 13 weeks, documented transvaginal ultrasound reports, and follow-up on pregnancy outcome. The cohort presented a natural imbalance (8.5% ectopic, 91.5% intrauterine pregnancies), reflecting real-world clinical prevalence. Data on risk factors, clinical symptoms, ultrasound findings, and serial hCG levels were included. The dataset was preprocessed and split into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets using stratified sampling based on pregnancy outcome to preserve the proportion of ectopic cases in both sets. The main outcome measures were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score. Results: The neural network model achieved an accuracy of 99.4%, sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 97.2%, and an F1 score of 95.9%. The Naïve Bayes model showed an accuracy of 96.5%, sensitivity of 98.1%, specificity of 71.2%, and an F1 score of 82.5%. Both models were validated without evidence of overfitting. Conclusion: The neural network model demonstrated statistically significant superior accuracy and reliability in diagnosing ectopic pregnancy compared to the Naïve Bayes model (McNemar's test, p < 0.001), suggesting the potential of machine learning models, particularly deep learning, to enhance early diagnosis and 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.