{"title":"Development and Validation of Risk Assessment Model for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Based on A Retrospective Study with Machine Learning Algorithms.","authors":"Ling Mei, Linbo Gao, Tao Wang, Dong Yang, Weixing Chen, Xiaoyu Niu","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06046-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>We aimed to develop and validate a clinically applicable risk assessment model for identifying women at a high risk of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) based on a retrospective practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study enrolled patients with and without POP between January 2019 and December 2021. Clinical data were collected and machine learning models were applied, such as multilayer perceptron, logistic regression, random forest (RF), light gradient boosting machine and extreme gradient boosting. Two datasets were constructed, one comprising all variables and the other excluding physical examination variables. Two versions of the machine learning model were developed. One was for professional doctors, and the other was for community-health providers. The area under the curve (AUC) and its confidence interval (CI), accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to evaluate the model's performance. The Shapley Additive Explanations method was used to visualize and interpret the model output.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16,416 women were recruited, with 8,314 and 8,102 in the POP and non-POP groups respectively. Eighty-seven variables were recorded. Among all candidate models, the RF model with 13 variables showed the best performance, with an AUC of 0.806 (95% CI 0.793-0.817), accuracy of 0.723, F1 of 0.731, sensitivity of 0.742, and specificity of 0.703. Excluding the physical examination variables, the RF model with 11 variables showed an AUC, accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.716, 0.652, 0.688, 0.757, and 0.545 respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We constructed a clinically applicable risk warning system that will help clinicians to identify women at a high risk of POP.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06046-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis: We aimed to develop and validate a clinically applicable risk assessment model for identifying women at a high risk of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) based on a retrospective practice.
Methods: This study enrolled patients with and without POP between January 2019 and December 2021. Clinical data were collected and machine learning models were applied, such as multilayer perceptron, logistic regression, random forest (RF), light gradient boosting machine and extreme gradient boosting. Two datasets were constructed, one comprising all variables and the other excluding physical examination variables. Two versions of the machine learning model were developed. One was for professional doctors, and the other was for community-health providers. The area under the curve (AUC) and its confidence interval (CI), accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to evaluate the model's performance. The Shapley Additive Explanations method was used to visualize and interpret the model output.
Results: A total of 16,416 women were recruited, with 8,314 and 8,102 in the POP and non-POP groups respectively. Eighty-seven variables were recorded. Among all candidate models, the RF model with 13 variables showed the best performance, with an AUC of 0.806 (95% CI 0.793-0.817), accuracy of 0.723, F1 of 0.731, sensitivity of 0.742, and specificity of 0.703. Excluding the physical examination variables, the RF model with 11 variables showed an AUC, accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.716, 0.652, 0.688, 0.757, and 0.545 respectively.
Conclusions: We constructed a clinically applicable risk warning system that will help clinicians to identify women at a high risk of POP.
期刊介绍:
The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion