Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41714365›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Machine learning based classification of female genital mutilation in 11 Sub-Saharan African countries using demographic and health survey data.

Alemayehu Kasu Gebrehana, Lidetu Demoze, Gelila Yitageasu, Bizunesh Fantahun Kase, Mitkie Tigabie, Angwach Abrham Asnake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alemayehu Kasu GebrehanaDepartment of Midwifery, College of Health sciences, Salale University, Fitche, Ethiopia. alemayehukasu3@gmail.com.
Lidetu DemozeDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Gelila YitageasuDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Bizunesh Fantahun KaseDepartment of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Mattu University, Mattu, Ethiopia.
Mitkie TigabieDepartment of Medical Microbiology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Science, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Angwach Abrham AsnakeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Medicine, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Female Genital mutilation (FGM) has been associated with numerous negative health effects like sexual dysfunction, chronic pain, infections, infertility, and an increased risk of maternal mortality. To date, no recognized studies in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have combined machine learning (ML) models with nationally representative Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data to classify FGM. Therefore, this study aims to identify the most effective ML model for classifying FGM in SSA. ML offers the significant advantage of handling extremely large and complex datasets with numerous variables and interactions, providing more accurate classifications than conventional statistical methods. This study used secondary data from the DHS collected between 2015 and 2023 in 11 SSA countries. The DHS employs a cross-sectional study design. A total of 62,249 women who had at least one daughter were included in the analysis. Seven classification algorithms, including Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), XGBoost (XGB), and Naive Bayes (NB), were used to classify FGM. The RF classifier yielded the highest performance, achieving 0.85 accuracy, 0.83 precision, 0.88 recall, 0.85 F1 score, and 0.93 AUC. Random Forest (Brier score = 0.1319) and Decision Tree (0.1328) showed best calibration. The SHAP plots provide a comprehensive interpretation of the features influencing the model's classification of whether a mother reports that at least one daughter has undergone FGM. The bar plot shows the global importance of each feature, with opinion on FGM (+ 0.14), country of residence (+ 0.13), respondent's circumcision status (+ 0.11), and religious justification for FGM (+ 0.07) contributing the most on average to the classification of FGM. This study applied seven machine ML techniques to classify FGM in SSA, with the Random Forest classifier demonstrating the best performance. SHAP interpretability findings indicated that maternal opinion on FGM, country of residence, religious justifications for FGM, and the respondent's circumcision status contributed most, on average, to the classification of FGM. These results suggest that education and advocacy efforts aimed at mothers particularly those who have had FGM themselves or who believe that the practice is justified by religion should be given top priority in interventions. Implementing community engagement initiatives that challenge accepted conventions and ideas around FGM may be particularly beneficial, especially when these practices are rooted in religious or cultural justifications.

Indexed as

Circumcision, FemaleMachine LearningAdolescentAdultAfrica South of the SaharaBayes TheoremBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsClassification AlgorithmsCross-Sectional StudiesDemographyFemaleHealth SurveysHumansLogistic ModelsPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsClassificationFemale genital mutilationMachine learningSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID41714365
PMCPMC13022276

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.