Factors Affecting Endometriosis in Women of Reproductive Age: The Differences Between the Results of Neural Network and Logistic Regression

Shahla Chaichian, Jamileh Abolghasemi, Fatemeh Omidi, Shahnaz Rimaz, Zahra Najmi, Abolfazl Mehdizadehkashi, Bahram Moazzami
In: Shiraz E-Medical Journal · 2018 · vol. In Press(In Press) · doi:10.5812/semj.62560 · W2885995317
article OA: diamond CC0
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This study used logistic regression and neural networks to identify factors influencing endometriosis in reproductive-aged women, comparing their predictive performance.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 · read from full text ⓘ

This study compared neural network and logistic regression models to identify factors associated with endometriosis in women of reproductive age, using a case–control design with variables including age, BMI, menstrual history, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, reproductive history, infertility, and spotting-related symptoms. Both modeling approaches highlighted age, BMI, reproductive factors, and premenstrual spotting as influential, with logistic regression reporting an AUC of 0.940 and showing age (OR ~1.043), BMI (OR ~1.11), premenstrual spotting, dyspareunia, dysmenorrhea, infertility history, and aspects of live birth history as statistically associated with the response in the reported tables. The authors note that some variables were only selected if significant at an “80% level,” indicating potential thresholding for inclusion and a limited discussion of uncertainty across all predictors. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it models and compares risk-factor associations for endometriosis using neural networks and logistic regression in reproductive-age women.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Background: Endometriosis is a common gynecologic problem in women of reproductive age around the globe. The aim of this study was to specify the factors influencing endometriosis in women of reproductive age using logistic regression and artificial neural network (ANN). Methods: The data of this case-control study was obtained from the medical records in Rasoul-e-Akram hospital, Tehran. Patients, who underwent laparoscopy from 2007 to 2015 and were diagnosed with endometriosis, were selected as the case group (n = 250), and patients diagnosed without endometriosis served as controls (n = 250). To investigate the factors affecting the occurrence of endometriosis, ANN and logistic regression were used and for evaluating the efficiency of the two methods, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used. To analyze the data, SPSS (version 22) and R (version 3.2.1) software were used.
Full text 5,545 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
1. Background 2. Methods 3. Results | Variable | Case | Control | Total | Estimate of Coefficient | ||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | β | SD (β) | OR | P Value | |||| | Age, yb | 34.8 ± 0.62 | 33.7 ± 0.55 | 33.3 ± 8.75 | 0.041 | 0.011 | 1.042 | < 0.001 | | BMI, kg/m2b | 24.8 ± 0.62 | 23.2 ± 0.45 | 23.7 ± 3.88 | 0.107 | 0.054 | 1.11 | 0.047 | | Marital status | ||||||| | Single | 42 (19.4) | 52 (24.1) | 94 (21.8) | - | - | - | - | | Married | 174 (80.6) | 164 (75.9) | 338 (78.2) | 0.277 | 0.236 | 1.319 | 0.241 | | Regular menstruationb | ||||||| | Positive | 96 (44.4) | 73 (33.8) | 169 (39.1) | - | - | - | - | | Negative | 120 (55.6) | 143 (66.2) | 263 (60.9) | 0.449 | 0.199 | 1.567 | 0.024 | | Duration of menstrual cyclesb | ||||||| | ≥ 27 | 69 (31.9) | 42 (21.8) | 116 (26.9) | .598 | 0.349 | 1.818 | 0.087 | | 28 | 126 (58.3) | 143 (66.2) | 269 (62.3) | 0.087 | 0.318 | 1.091 | 0.784 | | ≤ 29 | 21 (9.7) | 26 (12) | 47 (10.9) | - | - | - | - | | Duration of menstrual bleedingb | ||||||| | ≥ 4 | 16 (7.6) | 24 (11.1) | 40 (9.3) | - | - | - | - | | 5 | 126 (58.3) | 143 (66.2) | 269 (62.3) | 0.279 | 0.345 | 1.322 | 0.419 | | ≤ 6 | 74 (34.3) | 49 (22.7) | 23 (28.5) | 0.818 | 0.372 | 2.265 | 0.028 | | Dysmenorrheab | ||||||| | Positive | 68 (31.5) | 44 (20.4) | 112 (25.6) | 0.584 | 0.224 | 1.796 | 0.028 | | Negative | 148 (68.5) | 172 (79.6) | 320 (74.1) | - | - | - | - | | Duration of pain | ||||||| | 1 - 2 days | 2 (2.9) | 3 (6.8) | 5 (4.5) | - | - | - | - | | > 3 | 66 (97.1) | 41 (93.2) | 107 (95.5) | 0.882 | 0.934 | 2.415 | 0.345 | | Number of pregnanciesb | ||||||| | 0 | 48 (22.2) | 37 (17.1) | 85 (19.7) | - | - | - | - | | 1 | 31 (14.4) | 59 (27.3) | 90 (20.8) | 0.904 | 0.312 | 0.405 | 0.004 | | 2 | 32 (14.8) | 35 (16.2) | 67 (15.5) | 0.350 | 0.328 | 0.705 | 0.286 | | ≤ 3 | 65 (30.1) | 34 (15.7) | 99 (22.9) | 0.388 | 0.304 | 1.474 | 0.203 | | Number of live birthsb | ||||||| | 0 | 54 (25) | 49 (22.7) | 103 (23.8) | - | - | - | - | | 1 | 34 (15.3) | 60 (27.8) | 93 (21.5) | 0.355 | 0.303 | 0.701 | 0.244 | | 2 | 30 (13.9) | 36 (16.7) | 66 (15.3) | 0.061 | 0.325 | 1.065 | 0.852 | | ≤ 3 | 59 (27.3) | 20 (9.3) | 79 (18.3) | 1.325 | 0.334 | 3.761 | < 0.001 | | Number of abortionb | ||||||| | 0 | 147 (68.1) | 135 (62.5) | 282 (65.3) | - | - | - | - | | ≤ 1 | 29 (13.4) | 30 (13.9) | 59 (13.7) | 0.328 | 0.243 | 0.176 | 1.388 | | Using OCPs | ||||||| | Positive | 16 (7.4) | 22 (10.2) | 38 (8.8) | - | - | - | - | | Negative | 160 (74.1) | 143 (66.2) | 303 (70.1) | 0.349 | 0.344 | 0.705 | 0.310 | | Dyspareuniab | ||||||| | Positive | 30 (13.9) | 36 (16.7) | 66 (15.4) | 0.586 | 0.224 | 1.796 | 0.009 | | Negative | 147 (68.1) | 129 (59.7) | 276 (63.9) | - | - | - | - | | Family history of endometriosis | ||||||| | Positive | - | 3 (1.4) | 3 (0.7) | - | - | - | - | | Negative | 216 (100) | 213 (98.6) | 429 (99.3) | - | - | - | - | | History of pelvic infection | ||||||| | Positive | 4 (0.2) | 4 (0.2) | 8 (1.8) | 0.292 | 0.770 | 1.340 | 0.704 | | Negative | 212 (98) | 212 (98) | 425 (98.2) | - | - | - | - | | History of infertilityb | ||||||| | Positive | 37 (17.2) | 9 (4.2) | 46 (10.6) | 1.657 | 0.427 | 5.242 | < 0.001 | | Negative | 40 (64.4) | 156 (72.2) | 295 (68.3) | - | - | - | | | Type of infertility | ||||||| | Primary | 26 (33.8) | 9 (15) | 35 (25.5) | 0.128 | 0.241 | 1.136 | 0.597 | | Secondary | 11 (14.3) | - | 11 (8.9) | - | - | - | - | | History of infertility treatment | ||||||| | Positive | 37 (48.1) | 9 (15) | 46 (33.6) | 0.138 | 0.272 | 1.157 | 0.502 | | Negative | 1 (1.3) | - | 1 (1.3) | - | - | - | - | | Premenstrual spottingb | 0.513 | 0.249 | 1.670 | 0.039 | ||| | Positive | 50 (23.1) | 33 (15.3) | 83 (19.2) | |||| | Negative | 167 (79.9) | 183 (84.7) | 349 (80.8) | |||| | Pain in defecation | - | - | - | - | ||| | Positive | 9 (4.2) | - | 9 (2.1) | |||| | Negative | 207 (95.8) | 216 (100) | 423 (97.9) | aValues are expressed as mean ± SD or No. (%). bVariables that were significant at the 80% level showed a significant correlation with the response variable. | Variable | Coefficients | SD | OR | P Value | |---|---|---|---|---| | Age, y | 0.042 | 0.012 | 1.043 | < 0.001 | | Premenstrual spotting | 0.045 | ||| | Positive | 0.654 | 0.259 | 1.936 | | | Negative | - | - | - | | | Number of live births | |||| | Positive | - | - | - | - | | Negative | 0.261 | 0.258 | 0.771 | 0.012 | | Constant value | -1.131 | 4.00 | 7.977 | 0.005 | | No. | Number of Middle Layers | Number of Nodes of the First Hidden Layer | Number of Nodes of the Second Hidden Layer | First Activity Subordinate | Second Activity Subordinate | Sum of Errors’ Squares | AUC | Incorrect Predictions, % | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | 2 | 11 | 7 | Hyperbolic tangent | Sigmoid | 36.77 | 0.911 | 16.6 | | 2 | 2 | 11 | 6 | Hyperbolic tangent | Sigmoid | 37.148 | 0.908 | 18.6 | | 3 | 2 | 11 | 5 | Hyperbolic tangent | Hyperbolic tangent | 38.843 | 0.911 | 17.6 | | 4 | 2 | 12 | 8 | Hyperbolic tangent | Sigmoid | 30.025 | 0.940 | 14.0 | | 5 | 2 | 12 | 7 | Hyperbolic tangent | Sigmoid | 36.735 | 0.907 | 16.9 | | 6 | 2 | 12 | 8 | Hyperbolic tangent | Sigmoid | 37.449 | 0.901 | 17.6 | | 7 | 2 | 11 | 6 | Hyperbolic tangent | Sigmoid | 34.635 | 0.911 | 16.6 | | 8 | 2 | 11 | 7 | Hyperbolic tangent | Sigmoid | 35.743 | 0.916 | 15.9 | | 9 | 1 | 9 | - | Sigmoid | Sigmoid | 36.837 | 0.905 | 15.6 | | Importance | Normalized Importance, % | | |---|---|---| | Number of live births | 0.183 | 53.2 | | Age | 0.343 | 99.8 | | Premenstrual spotting | 0.131 | 38.3 | | BMI | 0.343 | 100.0 |

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (38)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK