ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Optimization of management plan with a machine learning model for ovarian torsion cases: operative vs. conservative.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ovarian torsion is a gynecologic emergency requiring timely management to preserve ovarian function and future fertility. Clinical presentation is heterogeneous and frequently non-specific, making the decision between operative and conservative management challenging, particularly in reproductive-aged patients. Objective: Develop and evaluate a machine learning-based prognostic model to support individualized management decisions in ovarian torsion. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 219 patients diagnosed with ovarian torsion. Demographic characteristics, reproductive and surgical history, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, laboratory findings, and imaging features were analyzed. Multiple supervised machine learning models were trained and compared, including Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and Neural Network classifiers. Class imbalance was addressed using class weighting and oversampling techniques (ROSE, SMOTE, SMOTE-ENN). Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Principal component analysis (PCA) and unsupervised clustering were performed to identify latent clinical domains and phenotypic subgroups. Results: The class-weighted Decision Tree demonstrated the most balanced and clinically interpretable performance (AUC = 0.76; sensitivity = 0.75; specificity = 0.73). Key predictors included doppler findings, BMI, blood group (ABO), ethnicity, major and associated clinical symptoms, the presence of pelvic mass, menopause, history of OCP, infertility and previous surgery. PCA identified eight clinical domains, and clustering revealed two phenotypically distinct patient profiles, underscoring the heterogeneity of ovarian torsion presentations. Conclusion: Machine learning models can support individualized risk stratification in ovarian torsion. A transparent, non-overfitted Decision Tree model offers a clinically interpretable framework that may assist fertility-preserving management decisions. Prospective multicenter validation is required before clinical implementation.
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.