Assessing the Utility of artificial intelligence in endometriosis: Promises and pitfalls

Endometriosis, a chronic condition characterized by the growth of endometrial-like tissue outside of the uterus, poses substantial challenges in terms of diagnosis and treatment. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool in the field of medicine, offering opportunities to address the complexities of endometriosis. This review explores the current landscape of endometriosis diagnosis and treatment, highlighting the potential of AI to alleviate some of the associated burdens and underscoring common pitfalls and challenges when employing AI algorithms in this context. Women’s health research in endometriosis has suffered from underfunding, leading to limitations in diagnosis, classification, and treatment approaches. The heterogeneity of symptoms in patients with endometriosis has further complicated efforts to address this condition. New, powerful methods of analysis have the potential to uncover previously unidentified patterns in data relating to endometriosis. AI, a collection of algorithms replicating human decision-making in data analysis, has been increasingly adopted in medical research, including endometriosis studies. While AI offers the ability to identify novel patterns in data and analyze large datasets, its effectiveness hinges on data quality and quantity and the expertise of those implementing the algorithms. Current applications of AI in endometriosis range from diagnostic tools for ultrasound imaging to predicting treatment success. These applications show promise in reducing diagnostic delays, healthcare costs, and providing patients with more treatment options, improving their quality of life. AI holds significant potential in advancing the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis, but it must be applied carefully and transparently to avoid pitfalls and ensure reproducibility. This review calls for increased scrutiny and accountability in AI research. Addressing these challenges can lead to more effective AI-driven solutions for endometriosis and other complex medical conditions

Nerve Bundle Density and Expression of NGF and IL-1β Are Intra-Individually Heterogenous in Subtypes of Endometriosis

Endometriosis is a gynecological disorder associated with local inflammation and neuroproliferation. Increased nerve bundle density has been attributed to increased expression of nerve growth factor (NGF) and interleukin–1β (IL-1β). Immunohistochemical analysis was carried out on 12 patients presenting with all three anatomic subtypes of endometriosis (deep, superficial peritoneal, endometrioma) at surgery, with at least two surgically excised subtypes available for analysis. Immunolocalization for nerve bundle density around endometriosis using protein gene product 9.5 (PGP9.5), as well as NGF and IL-1β histoscores in endometriosis epithelium/stroma, was performed to evaluate differences in scores between lesions and anatomic subtypes per patient. Intra-individual heterogeneity in scores across lesions was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV). The degree of score variability between subtypes was evaluated using the percentage difference between mean scores from one subtype to another subtype for each marker. PGP9.5 nerve bundle density was heterogenous across multiple subtypes of endometriosis, ranging from 50.0% to 173.2%, where most patients (8/12) showed CV ≥ 100%. The percentage difference in scores showed that PGP9.5 nerve bundle density and NGF and IL-1β expression were heterogenous between anatomic subtypes within the same patient. Based on these observations of intra-individual heterogeneity, we conclude that markers of neuroproliferation in endometriosis should be stratified by anatomic subtype in future studies of clinical correlation.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCObstetrics and Gynaecology, Department ofPathology and Laboratory Medicine, Department ofReviewedFacult

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline