Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42477657›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2026

Beyond visual inspection: can a multimodal machine learning model improve the preoperative differentiation of endometrial polyps from non-polypoid endometrial lesions?

Danli Ma, Zhiying Ye, Chuhan Wang, Huizhen Lin, Huimin Yu, Yingsha Yao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Danli MaDepartment of Gynecology, Wenzhou Medical University, Ningbo No.2 Hospital, Ningbo, 315000, China.
Zhiying YeDepartment of Ultrasound, Wenzhou Medical University, Ningbo No.2 Hospital, Ningbo, 315000, China.
Chuhan WangDepartment of Gynecology, Wenzhou Medical University, Ningbo No.2 Hospital, Ningbo, 315000, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-3768-0955
Huizhen LinDepartment of Gynecology, Wenzhou Medical University, Ningbo No.2 Hospital, Ningbo, 315000, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1412-8921
Huimin YuDepartment of Gynecology, Wenzhou Medical University, Ningbo No.2 Hospital, Ningbo, 315000, China.
Yingsha YaoDepartment of Gynecology, Wenzhou Medical University, Ningbo No.2 Hospital, Ningbo, 315000, China. yaoyingsha@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7049-7057

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a multimodal machine learning model that integrates clinical data and ultrasound features to improve the non‑invasive preoperative differentiation between endometrial polyps (EMPs) and non‑polypoid endometrial lesions (including polypoid hyperplasia and normal endometrial tissue).

methodsThis single‑center retrospective cohort study included 913 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial polyp confirmed by postoperative pathology. Based on pathological findings, patients were categorized into a typical polyp group (n = 601) and a non‑polyp group (n = 312, consisting mainly of polypoid hyperplasia). Clinical baseline characteristics, transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) features, and hysteroscopic observations were collected. Independent predictors were identified through multivariate analysis. Multiple prediction models-including logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT)-were constructed and evaluated using a 70:30 split into training and test sets.

resultsNo significant differences were observed between the two groups in baseline characteristics. Typical EMPs more frequently presented as focal masses on ultrasound (82.4% vs. 75.3%) and exhibited detectable intralesional blood flow (51.6% vs. 38.8%). Multivariate analysis identified endometrial thickness on ultrasound, the presence of ultrasound‑detected blood flow, and hysteroscopic visualization of vegetations as independent predictors. Among the tested models, the GBDT demonstrated the best discriminative performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.727, outperforming the traditional logistic regression model (AUC = 0.599).

conclusionMultimodal machine learning models, particularly GBDT, offer a potentially useful auxiliary tool for distinguishing EMPs from polypoid hyperplasia. However, their current diagnostic performance remains insufficient to support standalone clinical decision‑making. These findings highlight the limitations of existing non‑invasive methods and reinforce the necessity of histopathological confirmation. Future efforts should focus on incorporating more objective quantitative radiomic features to advance preoperative risk stratification.

Indexed as

Endometrial HyperplasiaEndometrial NeoplasmsEndometriumMachine LearningPolypsAdultBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsClassification AlgorithmsDecision TreesDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansHysteroscopyLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedPredictive Learning ModelsEndometrial polypsMultimodal machine learningPolypoid hyperplasia

Identifiers

PMID42477657
PMCPMC13670501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.