Comparative analysis of machine learning approaches for predicting the risk of vaginal laxity

被引:0
|
作者
Zhao, Hongguo [1 ]
Liu, Peng [1 ]
Chen, Fei [1 ]
Wang, Mengjuan [1 ]
Liu, Jiaxi [1 ]
Fu, Xiling [1 ]
Yu, Hang [1 ]
Nai, Manman [1 ]
Li, Lei [1 ]
Li, Xinbin [2 ]
机构
[1] Zhengzhou Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Affiliated Hosp 3, Zhengzhou 450052, Peoples R China
[2] Northwestern Polytech Univ, Sch Marine Sci & Technol, Xian 710072, Peoples R China
来源
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS | 2025年 / 15卷 / 01期
关键词
Vaginal laxity; Machine learning; Modified Oxford muscle strength grading; Pelvic floor pressure assessment;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-025-86931-x
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
This study develops predictive models for Chinese female patients with VL utilizing machine learning techniques. The aim is to create an effective model that can assist in clinical diagnosis and treatment of vaginal relaxation, thereby enhancing women's pelvic floor health. In total, 1184 women with VL have been randomly selected and categorized into groups using the finger measurement method. Among them, there are 383 cases of mild VL, 405 cases of moderate VL, and 396 cases of severe VL. Concurrently, 396 healthy women without VL who underwent routine health examinations have been chosen at random and assigned to the non-VL group. Based on 1580 cases, we have established LightGBM, Random Forest, XGBoost, and AdaBoost models based on training dataset using 5-fold cross-validation and GridSearch, and analyzed the performance of the models on the hold-out test dataset. The confusion matrix, precision, recall, F1 score, overall accuracy, and ROC curve of the models on the hold-out test dataset are compared. The overall accuracy of LightGBM model, RF model, XGBoost model, and AdaBoost model are 0.8987, 0.8987, 0.8987, and 0.8457, respectively. The average AUC of LightGBM model is 0.976, the one of RF model is 0.9763, the one of XGBoost model is 0.9775, and the one of AdaBoost model is 0.928. The XGBoost model has the more comprehensive and reasonable performance among the four prediction models, which can accurately distinguish between healthy, mild VL, as well as moderate VL and severe VL, which can assist doctors in diagnosing persons' conditions more accurately, devising personalized treatment plans, avoiding unnecessary surgeries, reducing persons' psychological stress, improving patient compliance and treatment outcomes, thus enhancing overall treatment results.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for predicting production capability of crop yield
    Jain, Kalpana
    Choudhary, Naveen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEM ASSURANCE ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 2022, 13 (SUPPL 1) : 583 - 593
  • [42] Comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms for predicting live weight of Hereford cows
    Ruchay, Alexey
    Kober, Vitaly
    Dorofeev, Konstantin
    Kolpakov, Vladimir
    Dzhulamanov, Kinispay
    Kalschikov, Vsevolod
    Guo, Hao
    COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS IN AGRICULTURE, 2022, 195
  • [43] Comparative analysis of Machine Learning approaches for early stage Cervical Spondylosis detection
    Sreeraj, M.
    Joy, Jestin
    Jose, Manu
    Varghese, Meenu
    Rejoice, T. J.
    JOURNAL OF KING SAUD UNIVERSITY-COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCES, 2022, 34 (06) : 3301 - 3309
  • [44] Comparative Analysis of Cyber Security Approaches Using Machine Learning in Industry 4.0
    Cebeloglu, F. Sumeyye
    Karakose, Mehmet
    2020 6TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (IEEE ISSE 2020), 2020,
  • [45] Comparative study of different machine learning approaches for predicting the compressive strength of palm fuel ash concrete
    Kellouche, Yasmina
    Tayeh, Bassam A.
    Chetbani, Yazid
    Zeyad, Abdullah M.
    Mostafa, Sahar A.
    JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING, 2024, 88
  • [46] Comparative Study of Machine Learning Approaches in Diabetes Prediction
    Parameswari, P.
    Rajathi, N.
    BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2020, 13 (11): : 42 - 46
  • [47] A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Approaches for Handwriter Identification
    Durou, Amal
    Aref, Ibrahim
    Elbendak, Mosa
    Al-Maadeed, Somaya
    Bouridane, Ahmed
    PROCEEDINGS OF 2019 IEEE 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GLOBAL SECURITY, SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY (ICGS3-2019), 2019, : 207 - 212
  • [48] Predicting the Risk of Diabetes and Heart Disease with Machine Learning Classifiers: The Mediation Analysis
    Verma, Ajay
    Jain, Manisha
    MEASUREMENT-INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND PERSPECTIVES, 2024,
  • [49] Progressive Machine Learning Approaches for Predicting the Soil Compaction Parameters
    Benbouras, Mohammed Amin
    Lefilef, Lina
    TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE GEOTECHNOLOGY, 2023, 10 (02) : 211 - 238
  • [50] Predicting Aquaculture Water Quality Using Machine Learning Approaches
    Li, Tingting
    Lu, Jian
    Wu, Jun
    Zhang, Zhenhua
    Chen, Liwei
    WATER, 2022, 14 (18)