Evidence mapPaperPMID 41948489Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026

Integrating reproductive and metabolic factors for uterine fibroid risk assessment: a two-center machine learning study with SHAP interpretability.

Yunxia Ji, Yun Shen, Yahui Wu, Ke Lei, Min Kang, Jinsheng Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Yunxia Ji *Department of Pathology, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi, China.
Yun Shen *Department of Pathology, People's Hospital of Tongling City, Tongling, Anhui, China.
Yahui WuDepartment of Pathology, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi, China.
Ke LeiDepartment of Pathology, People's Hospital of Tongling City, Tongling, Anhui, China.
Min KangDepartment of Pathology, People's Hospital of Tongling City, Tongling, Anhui, China.
Jinsheng WangDepartment of Pathology, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Uterine fibroids are common benign gynecological tumors that adversely affect reproductive health. This study aimed to develop a machine learning-based model to predict individualized fibroid risk in women of reproductive age. Methods: Six clinical predictors encompassing reproductive and metabolic factors were analyzed. Feature selection was performed using LASSO regression, and multiple machine learning algorithms with cross-validation were compared. The optimal model was assessed for discrimination, calibration, and clinical benefit, with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis employed to enhance interpretability. Results: A total of 1,274 women were included, of whom 762 (59.8%) had uterine fibroids. Six predictors were retained, and among the classifiers tested, the Random Forest achieved the best validation performance (AUC = 0.734) with balanced accuracy and F1 score. SHAP interpretation further identified age, BMI, menarche age, parity, triglycerides, and fasting glucose as the most influential risk factors. Conclusion: An interpretable Random Forest model was established to predict uterine fibroid risk, enabling individualized risk stratification and supporting timely preventive interventions in clinical practice.

Indexed as

machine learningrandom forestrisk predictionSHAP interpretabilityuterine fibroids

Identifiers

PMID41948489
PMCPMC13050826

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.