The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Ultrasound Evaluation of Pelvic Floor Function after Transumbilical Laparoscopic Single-Site Total Hysterectomy Using Deep Learning Algorithm
Open accessAbstract
This study was aimed at investigating the ultrasound based on deep learning algorithm to evaluate the rehabilitation effect of transumbilical laparoscopic single-site total hysterectomy on pelvic floor function in patients. The bilinear convolutional neural network (BCNN) structure was constructed in the ultrasound imaging system. The spatial transformer network (STN) was used to preserve image information. Two algorithms, BCNN-R and BCNN-S, were proposed to remove sensitive information after ultrasonic image processing, and then, subtle features of the image were identified and classified. 80 patients undergoing transumbilical laparoscopic single-site total hysterectomy in hospital were randomly divided into a control group and a treatment group, with 40 cases in each group. In the control group, conventional ultrasound was used to assess the image of pelvic floor function in patients undergoing laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS); in the observation group, ultrasound based on deep learning algorithm was used. The postoperative incision pain score, average postoperative anus exhaust time, average hospital stay, and postoperative satisfaction of the two groups were evaluated, respectively. The highest accuracy of constructed network BCNN-S was 88.98%; the highest recall rate of BCNN-R was 88.51%; the highest accuracy rate of BCNN-R was 97.34%. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and exhaust time were similar between the two groups, and the difference had no statistical significance ( P > 0.05 ). The numerical rating scale (NRS) scores were compared, the observation group had less pain, the difference between the two groups had statistical significance ( P < 0.05 ), and the postoperative recovery was good. The BCNN based on deep learning can realize the imaging of the uterus by ultrasound and realize the evaluation of pelvic floor function, and the probability of pelvic floor dysfunction is small, which is worthy of clinical promotion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“both AI models showed reliability for disease prediction [210,218].”
From Evolving the Era of 5D Ultrasound? A Systematic Literature Review on the Applications for Artificial Intelligence Ultrasound Imaging in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2023) · cites this paper as [210]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“with only one being designed as a prospective, randomized-controlled clinical trial [210].”
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“This review lists two studies on this topic, evidencing that ovarian artery flow parameters obtained by AI analyzed color Doppler imaging can be used as a predictive factor”
From Evolving the Era of 5D Ultrasound? A Systematic Literature Review on the Applications for Artificial Intelligence Ultrasound Imaging in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2023) · cites this paper as [210]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhu, Y., Zhang, J., Ji, Z., Liu, W., Li, M., Xia, E., Zhang, J., & Wang, J.
- Affiliations
- Yancheng First People's Hospital (CN)
- Xuzhou Medical College (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Jianqing
- Venue
- Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-08-10
- Volume
- 2022
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 1748-670X (ISSN-L)
- 1748-6718
- PMC
- PMC9385360
- OpenAlex
- W4291002842
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- pelvic floor function, bilinear convolutional neural network, spatial transformer network, pelvic floor dysfunction, postoperative recovery
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Algorithms, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Postoperative Pain, Laparoscopy, Ultrasonography, Pelvic Floor
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
