MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406269764 · doi:10.1159/000543075

Advancements in Ultrasound Diagnosis of Superficial Endometriosis: Current Challenges and Emerging Techniques

2025· review· en· W4406269764 on OpenAlexaff
Shay Freger, Mathew Leonardi

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic and Obstetric Investigation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometriosisMedicineContext (archaeology)LaparoscopyMedical physicsClinical PracticeMEDLINEDiagnostic accuracyRadiologyGynecologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a chronic disease characterized by endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus. Superficial endometriosis (SE) is the most prevalent form, yet it remains underdiagnosed due to subtle clinical and imaging presentations. Traditionally, diagnosis relies on laparoscopy, which is relatively invasive and often contributes to diagnostic delay. With advancements in imaging techniques, especially transvaginal ultrasound (TVS), a reassessment of the diagnostic approach for SE is needed. This review updates the understanding of SE diagnostics and integrates both historical perspectives and contemporary clinical insights. OBJECTIVES: The review aimed to explore advancements in the diagnosis of SE, focusing on the growing role of TVS as a non-invasive diagnostic tool. Additionally, it seeks to highlight emerging diagnostic challenges and present new approaches to managing SE to offer updated recommendations for clinicians. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. The following keywords were used: "superficial endometriosis," "diagnostic pathways," "endometriosis diagnosis," "superficial lesions," "transvaginal ultrasound," "laparoscopy," "non-invasive imaging," and "diagnostic accuracy." Only English-language articles were included, focusing on original research, metanalyses, and clinical guidelines, offering historical and current perspectives. In addition to the literature review, contemporary insights were gathered from our clinical practice at a tertiary endometriosis clinic to offer real-world context to the literature findings. OUTCOME: The review highlights TVS as a promising non-invasive method for diagnosing SE. While SE has historically been diagnosed through laparoscopy, TVS is gaining recognition as a valuable tool for detecting SE lesions, particularly through the identification of key sonographic features such as hyperechoic foci and cystic spaces. These advancements help overcome the challenges posed by the variability of SE presentation on imaging. Emerging techniques, such as sonoPODography, further enhance SE diagnosis and offer the potential for broader clinical application. Despite challenges such as the need for operator expertise and variability in lesion presentation, the literature and clinical insights support the growing utility of TVS in diagnosing SE. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK: TVS has significant potential as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for SE. While limitations such as variability in sensitivity and the need for operator expertise remain, TVS can significantly reduce reliance on invasive methods like laparoscopy. Additionally, the review provides insights into managing cases, where TVS results are negative for SE. In such cases, clinicians must adopt a patient-centered approach that emphasizes symptom management, patient autonomy, and education about possible risks and treatment options. Rather than defaulting to a "watchful waiting" or a "one size fits all" strategy, it is essential to engage patients in shared decision-making, allowing them to make informed choices about further diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. This review underscores the importance of integrating TVS into routine diagnostic pathways for SE, improving early detection and enhancing patient care. Future research should focus on refining TVS techniques, establishing standardized diagnostic criteria, and exploring alternative diagnostic strategies for patients with negative imaging results. This approach has the potential to shift the paradigm of SE management, reducing diagnostic delays and empowering patients with a more proactive, informed approach to their care.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic and Obstetric InvestigationSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207