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?
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.
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.
- Efficacy of combined metformin plus progestin therapy versus progestin monotherapy in endometrial hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
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
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
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.