Machine Learning and Deep Learning for Diagnosis of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent endocrine disorder affecting reproductive-aged women worldwide, yet its diagnosis remains challenging due to heterogeneous clinical presentation and subjective assessment criteria. While machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models have shown promising results in automating and improving PCOS diagnosis, a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of their diagnostic performance is still lacking. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> To evaluate the overall diagnostic accuracy of ML and DL models for PCOS and identify factors influencing their performance. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> This study was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 7, 2025. Studies evaluating the diagnostic value of DL or ML algorithms for PCOS were included, while those with duplicate or unavailable data were excluded. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in each study. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were performed utilizing the MIDAS and METAPROP packages in Stata. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Forty-five studies comprising 49 datasets were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ML or DL models for diagnosing PCOS were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95; I² = 96.77%) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97; I² = 96.28%), respectively. The area under the SROC curve was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99). Subgroup analysis revealed that models utilizing DL (sensitivity: 0.98, specificity: 0.97), those trained on large databases, and those using ultrasound image features (sensitivity and specificity both: 0.99) demonstrated superior performance. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> ML or DL models show promise for the diagnosis of PCOS, achieving high summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. However, the substantial heterogeneity among studies and the scarcity of external validation significantly constrain the certainty of these findings and their generalizability to diverse clinical settings. Future research must prioritize large-scale, multi-center studies with robust external validation to confirm the real-world applicability and facilitate the clinical translation of these models. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> PROSPERO CRD420251137107; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251137107 </sec>

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.84006
Primary Topic
Ovarian function and disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Machine Learning and Deep Learning for Diagnosis of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Huaying Fan, Sifan Chen, Feiyan Cai, Chenjian Tang et al.
Ovarian function and disorders
article

Machine Learning and Deep Learning for Diagnosis of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Huaying Fan, Sifan Chen, Feiyan Cai, Chenjian Tang, Ping Wu, Xiaohua Chen
article en

Abstract

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent endocrine disorder affecting reproductive-aged women worldwide, yet its diagnosis remains challenging due to heterogeneous clinical presentation and subjective assessment criteria. While machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models have shown promising results in automating and improving PCOS diagnosis, a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of their diagnostic performance is still lacking. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> To evaluate the overall diagnostic accuracy of ML and DL models for PCOS and identify factors influencing their performance. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> This study was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 7, 2025. Studies evaluating the diagnostic value of DL or ML algorithms for PCOS were included, while those with duplicate or unavailable data were excluded. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in each study. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were performed utilizing the MIDAS and METAPROP packages in Stata. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Forty-five studies comprising 49 datasets were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ML or DL models for diagnosing PCOS were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95; I² = 96.77%) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97; I² = 96.28%), respectively. The area under the SROC curve was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99). Subgroup analysis revealed that models utilizing DL (sensitivity: 0.98, specificity: 0.97), those trained on large databases, and those using ultrasound image features (sensitivity and specificity both: 0.99) demonstrated superior performance. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> ML or DL models show promise for the diagnosis of PCOS, achieving high summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. However, the substantial heterogeneity among studies and the scarcity of external validation significantly constrain the certainty of these findings and their generalizability to diverse clinical settings. Future research must prioritize large-scale, multi-center studies with robust external validation to confirm the real-world applicability and facilitate the clinical translation of these models. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> PROSPERO CRD420251137107; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251137107 </sec>

Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Ovarian function and disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.