ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Analysis and application of a machine learning-based assisted diagnosis method for myofascial pelvic pain syndrome.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The research aims to leverage machine learning techniques to better understand the diagnosis of myofascial pelvic pain syndrome (MPPS) and to develop useful tools for clinical practice. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed clinical data from female patients. Between January 2021 and December 2024, 1,204 MPPS cases and 1,217 healthy women from the Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation Center of Zhengzhou University's Third Affiliated Hospital were enrolled. After screening, 1,136 MPPS patients and 1,136 healthy controls were selected. Using Results: The top four models in terms of AUC, ranked from highest to lowest, were RF, CatBoost, XGBoost, and LightGBM. The top four models in terms of accuracy, ranked from highest to lowest, were CatBoost, RF, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Moreover, the top four models in terms of area under the decision curve (AUDC), ranked from highest to lowest, were CatBoost, LightGBM, XGBoost, and RF. Furthermore, we created a web-based graphical user interface (GUI) for MPPS prediction. It can be packaged for cross-platform use, thereby streamlining diagnosis and improving accessibility for healthcare providers. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study compared 10 machine learning algorithms for diagnosing myofascial pelvic pain syndrome. The CatBoost model showed superior performance in terms of accuracy and clinical utility. In addition, a cross-platform web-based GUI was developed, streamlining diagnosis for healthcare providers and potentially improving patient outcomes.
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.