SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Machine learning and deep learning for diagnosis of Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome (PMOS) is a prevalent endocrine disorder with a challenging, heterogeneous diagnosis. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models show promise for automated diagnosis, but a quantitative synthesis of their accuracy is lacking. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ML/DL models for PMOS and identify factors influencing performance. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to January 26, 2026. Studies developing or validating ML/DL models for PMOS diagnosis were included. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. A random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was used to pool estimates. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed. Heterogeneity was quantified ( Results: Fifty-six studies (60 datasets) were included. Pooled sensitivity was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94; Conclusion: ML/DL models, particularly those using ultrasound imaging, demonstrate promising but conditional diagnostic accuracy for PMOS. However, poor reporting of diagnostic criteria, lack of external validation, and substantial heterogeneity limit current evidence. Future research must prioritize rigorous validation and adherence to reporting standards. While not yet ready for independent clinical use, these models hold promise as assistive tools to standardize ovarian assessment. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251137107, identifier CRD420251137107.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.