MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405299926 · doi:10.2196/65469

Exploring Self-Reported Symptoms for Developing and Evaluating Digital Symptom Checkers for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, Endometriosis, and Uterine Fibroids: Exploratory Survey Study

2024· article· en· W4405299926 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aidan Wickham, Yella Martin, Frederick G. B. Goddard, Allison K. Rodgers, Adam Cunningham, Carley Prentice, Octavia Wilks, Yusuf Cem Kaplan, Andrei Marhol, András Meczner, Heorhi Stsefanovich, Anna Klepchukova, Liudmila Zhaunova

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUterine fibroidsMedicinePolycystic ovaryEndometriosisGynecologyObstetricsPhysical therapyInternal medicineObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reproductive health conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, and uterine fibroids pose a significant burden to people who menstruate, health care systems, and economies. Despite clinical guidelines for each condition, prolonged delays in diagnosis are commonplace, resulting in an increase to health care costs and risk of health complications. Symptom checker apps have the potential to significantly reduce time to diagnosis by providing users with health information and tools to better understand their symptoms. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to study the prevalence and predictive importance of self-reported symptoms of PCOS, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids, and to explore the efficacy of 3 symptom checkers (developed by Flo Health UK Limited) that use self-reported symptoms when screening for each condition. METHODS: Flo's symptom checkers were transcribed into separate web-based surveys for PCOS, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids, asking respondents their diagnostic history for each condition. Participants were aged 18 years or older, female, and living in the United States. Participants either had a confirmed diagnosis (condition-positive) and reported symptoms retrospectively as experienced at the time of diagnosis, or they had not been examined for the condition (condition-negative) and reported their current symptoms as experienced at the time of surveying. Symptom prevalence was calculated for each condition based on the surveys. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression was used to identify key symptoms for predicting each condition. Participants' symptoms were processed by Flo's 3 single-condition symptom checkers, and accuracy was assessed by comparing the symptom checker output with the participant's condition designation. RESULTS: A total of 1317 participants were included with 418, 476, and 423 in the PCOS, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids groups, respectively. The most prevalent symptoms for PCOS were fatigue (92%), feeling anxious (87%), BMI over 25 (84%); for endometriosis: very regular lower abdominal pain (89%), fatigue (85%), and referred lower back pain (80%); for uterine fibroids: fatigue (76%), bloating (69%), and changing sanitary protection often (68%). Symptoms of anovulation and amenorrhea (long periods, irregular cycles, and absent periods), and hyperandrogenism (excess hair on chin and abdomen, scalp hair loss, and BMI over 25) were identified as the most predictive symptoms for PCOS, while symptoms related to abdominal pain and the effect pain has on life, bleeding, and fertility complications were among the most predictive symptoms for both endometriosis and uterine fibroids. Symptom checker accuracy was 78%, 73%, and 75% for PCOS, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study characterizes self-reported symptomatology and identifies the key predictive symptoms for 3 reproductive conditions. The Flo symptom checkers were evaluated using real, self-reported symptoms and demonstrated high levels of accuracy.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→