MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221092010 · doi:10.2196/29967

Machine-Aided Self-diagnostic Prediction Models for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Observational Study

2022· article· en· W4221092010 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycystic ovaryMachine learningPredictive modellingArtificial intelligenceObservational studyComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Data setMedicineData miningInternal medicineObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence and digital health care have substantially advanced to improve and enhance medical diagnosis and treatment during the prolonged period of the COVID-19 global pandemic. In this study, we discuss the development of prediction models for the self-diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) using machine learning techniques. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop self-diagnostic prediction models for PCOS in potential patients and clinical providers. For potential patients, the prediction is based only on noninvasive measures such as anthropomorphic measures, symptoms, age, and other lifestyle factors so that the proposed prediction tool can be conveniently used without any laboratory or ultrasound test results. For clinical providers who can access patients' medical test results, prediction models using all predictor variables can be adopted to help health providers diagnose patients with PCOS. We compare both prediction models using various error metrics. We call the former model the patient model and the latter, the provider model throughout this paper. METHODS: In this retrospective study, a publicly available data set of 541 women's health information collected from 10 different hospitals in Kerala, India, including PCOS status, was acquired and used for analysis. We adopted the CatBoost method for classification, K-fold cross-validation for estimating the performance of models, and SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values to explain the importance of each variable. In our subgroup study, we used k-means clustering and Principal Component Analysis to split the data set into 2 distinct BMI subgroups and compared the prediction results as well as the feature importance between the 2 subgroups. RESULTS: We achieved 81% to 82.5% prediction accuracy of PCOS status without any invasive measures in the patient models and achieved 87.5% to 90.1% prediction accuracy using both noninvasive and invasive predictor variables in the provider models. Among noninvasive measures, variables including acanthosis nigricans, acne, hirsutism, irregular menstrual cycle, length of menstrual cycle, weight gain, fast food consumption, and age were more important in the models. In medical test results, the numbers of follicles in the right and left ovaries and anti-Müllerian hormone were ranked highly in feature importance. We also reported more detailed results in a subgroup study. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed prediction models are ultimately expected to serve as a convenient digital platform with which users can acquire pre- or self-diagnosis and counsel for the risk of PCOS, with or without obtaining medical test results. It will enable women to conveniently access the platform at home without delay before they seek further medical care. Clinical providers can also use the proposed prediction tool to help diagnose PCOS in women.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it