文献速递妇科

人工智能与子宫内膜异位症诊断临床准备之间的差距:系统综述

Bridging the Gap Between Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Readiness in Endometriosis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.
PubMed 文献 · J Minim Invasive Gynecol · 2026-04-30

本系统综述评估了2015至2025年间七个数据库中利用机器学习或深度学习通过影像或临床症状诊断子宫内膜异位症的研究方法学质量和诊断性能。影像算法诊断准确率高达94.32%(MRI),超声AUC为0.90;症状模型准确率达95.95%,但存在谱偏倚和选择偏倚等系统弱点。

要点

  • 影像AI诊断内膜异位症准确率最高94.32%(MRI),超声AUC 0.90。
  • 症状模型准确率达95.95%,但多依赖社交媒体自报数据,偏倚风险高。
  • 现有研究多为回顾性设计且患者选择狭窄,阻碍临床转化。

核心结论

  • AI在自动化子宫内膜异位症检测方面潜力大,但现有文献受限于回顾性设计和狭窄患者选择。
  • 未来需在未分化人群中开展前瞻性验证,并联合多种诊断参考方法,才能将实验原型转化为临床筛查工具。

研究设计与样本

  • 系统综述,检索七个数据库2015至2025年发表的研究。
  • 纳入标准为利用AI(机器学习或深度学习)通过MRI、超声或患者报告症状诊断子宫内膜异位症的原发性研究。
  • 采用QUADAS-2工具评价方法学质量,研究筛选遵循双盲方案。

主要发现

  • 影像算法诊断准确率高达94.32%(MRI),超声AUC为0.90。
  • 症状模型使用随机森林和XGBoost等分类器,准确率达95.95%。
  • 质量评价显示显著临床异质性和系统脆弱性:谱偏倚普遍,多数模型在晚期队列训练,限制早期检测适用性。
  • 症状模型常依赖社交媒体自报数据,引入显著选择偏倚和验证偏倚。

临床怎么用

  • 当前AI模型尚不能直接用于临床筛查,尤其早期内膜异位症检测需谨慎解读。
  • 临床医生应关注模型训练人群特征,避免将晚期队列验证的算法外推至未分化人群。
  • 未来临床转化需等待前瞻性验证结果,并联合影像与症状等多模态诊断参考标准。

局限性

  • 纳入研究多为回顾性设计。
  • 患者选择狭窄,多数模型基于晚期病例训练。
  • 症状模型依赖社交媒体自报数据,存在选择偏倚和验证偏倚。
  • 存在显著临床异质性,影响结果泛化。

以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。

原文

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the methodological quality and diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) applications, specifically machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), in the diagnosis of endometriosis through imaging and clinical symptomology. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across seven databases for studies published between 2015 and 2025. METHOD OF STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria focused on primary research utilizing AI for endometriosis diagnosis via MRI, ultrasound, or patient-reported symptoms. Methodological quality was appraised using the QUADAS-2 tool. Study selection adhered to a double-blinded protocol to minimize selection bias. Clinical and methodological conflicts were addressed by a Professor of Radiography, while technical AI complexities were adjudicated by a Professor of Artificial Intelligence. TABULATIONS, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: AI models demonstrated high technical efficacy, with imaging-based algorithms achieving diagnostic accuracies up to 94.32% (MRI) and AUCs of 0.90 (Ultrasound). Symptom-based models reported accuracies reaching 95.95%, utilizing classifiers such as Random Forest and XGBoost. However, quality appraisal revealed significant clinical heterogeneity and systemic vulnerabilities. Spectrum bias was prevalent, as most models were trained on advanced-stage cohorts, limiting applicability for early-stage detection. Furthermore, symptom-based models often relied on self-reported data from social media, introducing significant selection and verification bias. CONCLUSION: While AI demonstrates high potential for automating endometriosis detection, current literature is constrained by retrospective designs and narrow patient selection. To move from experimental prototypes to clinical screening tools, future research must prioritize prospective validation in undifferentiated populations using a combination of diagnostic reference methods.

来源:J Minim Invasive Gynecol,查看原文。版权归原作者所有。

引用

  1. Haber M, Montebello M, Gauci GP, et al. Bridging the Gap Between Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Readiness in Endometriosis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2026. PMID: 42069053. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2026.04.016

供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。