MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415824661 · doi:10.2196/76021

Predicting Postoperative Stress Urinary Incontinence After Prolapse Surgery via Machine Learning and Regression Models: Development and Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4415824661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Minna Su, Xiaochun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrinary incontinenceSupport vector machineStress incontinencePredictive modellingPredictive value of testsRegressionClinical prediction rule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) often concurrently exist. The incontinence in some patients with POP resolves after POP surgery, but it persists in others. Some patients without SUI before surgery may develop de novo SUI. It is unclear whether a concomitant anti-incontinence procedure should be performed at the time of POP surgery to prevent postoperative incontinence. A prediction model is needed to guide clinical decision-making. Objective: This study aimed to analyze the risk factors and develop prediction models for SUI after POP surgery based on machine learning to provide new tools for evaluating and predicting postoperative SUI. Methods: Sample size calculation was performed using the Riley 4-step method. Data of patients undergoing prolapse surgery in Shanxi Bethune Hospital were prospectively collected from August 2022 to February 2025 and were retrospectively collected from January 2021 to August 2022. General clinical data, relevant laboratory test results, urodynamic examination findings, and pelvic floor ultrasound findings were collected. Lasso regression, univariate analysis, and logistic analysis were used to screen the predictors of SUI after prolapse surgery. Data were split randomly in a 7:3 ratio into training and validation sets. The training set was used to develop the prediction model involving Lasso regression, random forest, support vector machine (SVM), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), classification and regression tree (CART), and logistic regression, and the validation set was used for internal verification. The final implementation was achieved by developing a Shiny-based application for model deployment. Results: A total of 286 patients were enrolled in this study, and 91 patients had postoperative SUI. The following 6 risk factors were identified through univariate, logistic, and Lasso regression analyses: preoperative SUI, urge urinary incontinence, urodynamic occult SUI, anti-incontinence surgery, genital hiatus, and anterior colporrhaphy. Five prediction models were constructed by using logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost, SVM, and CART. Based on a comprehensive evaluation of model discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility, the SVM model demonstrated optimal overall performance, with an area under the curve of 0.821 in the training set and 0.846 in the validation set. Conclusions: This study developed 5 prediction models for postoperative SUI following prolapse surgery, which demonstrated good performance in internal validation. Among them, the SVM prediction model appeared to be the most promising. However, further external validation data are required to assess its generalizability. This model has the potential to become a high-quality clinical risk prediction tool for postoperative SUI in patients with prolapse, guiding clinical decisions on whether concurrent prolapse and incontinence surgeries are necessary.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207