Evaluation of Nursing Effect of Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation Training on Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Postpartum Pregnant Women under Ultrasound Imaging with Artificial Intelligence Algorithm
Open accessAbstract
This study was aimed at exploring the application value of ultrasound technology and rehabilitation training based on artificial intelligence algorithm in postpartum recovery of pelvic organ prolapse. Sixty patients diagnosed as mild and moderate pelvic organ prolapse by pelvic organ prolapse quantification evaluation were selected as the research objects. The patients were randomly divided into experimental group (30 cases) and control group (30 cases). The patients in the control group were given routine guidance and postpartum health education 42 days after delivery and given no pelvic floor rehabilitation training, waiting for natural recovery. 42 days after delivery, the patients in the experimental group received pelvic floor rehabilitation training based on the patients in the control group. All patients underwent ultrasonography, the convolution neural network (CNN) algorithm was used for image denoising and edge feature extraction, and the performance of the algorithm was evaluated by the Dice coefficient, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and Hausdorff distance. The thickness of levator ani muscle, anterior and posterior diameter of perineal hiatus, pelvic floor muscle strength, and imaging data were compared between the two groups. The results revealed that the thickness of levator ani muscle in the experimental group was significantly greater than that in the control group after one month and three months of treatment ( 0.633 ± 0.26 cm vs. 0.519 ± 0.234 cm, 0.7 ± 0.214 cm vs. 0.507 ± 0.168 cm, P < 0.05 ). After one month and three months of treatment, the anterior and posterior diameter of perineal fissure in the experimental group was obviously smaller than that in the control group ( 4.76 ± 0.513 cm vs. 5.002 ± 0.763 cm, 4.735 ± 0.614 cm vs. 4.987 ± 0.581 cm, P < 0.05 ). The pelvic floor muscle strength of the experimental group was remarkably higher than that of the control group after one month and three months of treatment ( 3.183 ± 1.47 vs. 2.41 ± 1.57 , 3.365 ± 1.53 vs. 2.865 ± 1.69 , P < 0.05 ). The ultrasonic image was clearer, the focus was more prominent, and the image quality was significantly improved after being processed by artificial intelligence algorithm. The Dice coefficient, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and Hausdorff distance of the proposed algorithm were better than those of the traditional algorithm. Thus, artificial intelligence algorithm had a good effect in ultrasonic image processing. Pelvic floor rehabilitation training had a good effect on postpartum nursing of patients with pelvic organ prolapse.
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
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?
A benefit of automated quality control algorithms was improved US image quality.
“Beside improved US image quality [176,177,178]”
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 [178]
The Results (section 3.2) and Conclusion (section 5) say that AI processing made the ultrasound images clearer and significantly improved image quality. The paper describes its CNN as an image-optimization algorithm, not an automated quality-control algorithm, so that characterization is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredYin et al. showed improved image quality when using an AI algorithm for image processing in US images of the pelvic floor.
“Lastly, Yin et al. showed improved image quality when using an AI algorithm for image processing in US images of the pelvic floor [178].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 33
- Authors
- Yin, P., & Wang, H.
- Affiliations
- Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Hospital (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Hongli
- Venue
- Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-04-25
- Volume
- 2022
- Pages
- 1-13
- ISSN
- 1748-670X (ISSN-L)
- 1748-6718
- PMC
- PMC9061012
- OpenAlex
- W4224861375
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 5.28
- 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 › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Keywords
- pelvic organ prolapse, postpartum women, convolutional neural networks, ultrasound image denoising, pelvic floor muscle strength, artificial intelligence in ultrasound, postpartum recovery, postpartum health education, postpartum hemorrhage
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Female, Humans, Male, Pregnancy, Ultrasonography, Pelvic Floor, Pregnant People, Pregnant Women, Postpartum Period, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Pelvic Floor Disorders
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