Feature-Limited Performance in Machine Learning Prediction of Endometriosis from Clinical Symptoms

Main Article Content

Rachel Lee Sarah Landman Milan Toma, PhD, SMIEEE

Abstract

Background: Endometriosis affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age worldwide, yet diagnosis remains challenging due to nonspecific symptoms and reliance on invasive laparoscopic confirmation, resulting in diagnostic delays averaging seven to ten years. Machine learning approaches have shown promise for noninvasive screening, but fundamental questions remain regarding whether performance limitations arise from model architecture constraints, insufficient training data, or intrinsic information ceilings imposed by symptom-based clinical features.


Methods: Five machine learning architectures (logistic regression with L1 regularization, support vector machines with radial basis function kernels, gradient-boosted decision trees, random forests, and deep neural networks) were systematically compared for endometriosis prediction using six base clinical variables from 10,000 patient records. The pipeline incorporated stratified data splitting (80%/10%/10% train/validation/test), label noise mitigation through ambiguity-based instance weighting, cost-sensitive learning prioritizing false negative reduction, and cross-validated threshold optimization. Feature engineering expanded the base features to 21 variables through interaction terms, polynomial transformations, and discretized bins. Learning curve analysis assessed whether performance was constrained by training set size or feature informativeness.


Results: All five model architectures converged to similar test performance (AUC range: 0.653–0.674), with the selected logistic regression model achieving test AUC of 0.674, recall of 0.566, precision of 0.562, and specificity of 0.696 at the Youden-optimized threshold. Feature engineering yielded negligible improvements, with mean test AUC changing by only 0.002 between baseline (6 features) and engineered (21 features) configurations. Learning curves plateaued beyond 60% of training data, with training and validation AUC converging to 0.667 and 0.641 respectively, and the gap narrowing from 0.058 to 0.026.


Conclusions: The convergence of multiple model families to similar performance limits, minimal gains from feature engineering, and plateaued learning curves provide empirical evidence that model performance is constrained by the information content of symptom-based clinical features rather than by model architecture, sample size, or feature representation sophistication. The observed AUC ceiling of approximately 0.65–0.67 aligns with published literature on symptom-based endometriosis screening and indicates that clinically actionable discrimination performance requires data enrichment through incorporation of imaging findings, biomarkers, or genomic risk factors rather than algorithmic innovation.

Keywords: endometriosis, machine learning, noninvasive screening, feature engineering, learning curves

Article Details

How to Cite
LEE, Rachel; LANDMAN, Sarah; TOMA, Milan. Feature-Limited Performance in Machine Learning Prediction of Endometriosis from Clinical Symptoms. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 2, feb. 2026. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/7221>. Date accessed: 02 mar. 2026. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v14i2.7221.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Tang Z, Ma C, Liu J, Liu C. Endometriosis burden and trends among women of childbearing age from 1990 to 2021. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 20 26;16:1561673. doi:10.3389/fendo.2025.1561673

2. Yan H, Li X, Dai Y, et al. Global, regional, and national burdens of endometriosis from 1990 to 2021: a trend analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 12:1562196. doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1562196

3. Parasar P, Ozcan P, Terry KL. Endometriosis: epidemiology, diagnosis and clinical management. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2017;6(1):34-41. doi:10. 1007/s13669-017-0187-1

4. Giudice LC, Kao LC. Endometriosis. Lancet. 2004 ;364(9447):1789-1799. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(0 4)17403-5

5. Li W, Feng H, Ye Q. Factors contributing to the delayed diagnosis of endometriosis—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025;12:1576490. doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1576490

6. De Corte P, Klinghardt M, von Stockum S, Heinemann K. Time to diagnose endometriosis: current status, challenges and regional characteristics—a systematic literature review. BJOG. 2024;132(2):118-130. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17973

7. Dantkale KS, Agrawal M. A comprehensive review of the diagnostic landscape of endometriosis: assessing tools, uncovering strengths, and acknowledging limitations. Cureus. 2024;16:e56978. doi:10.7759/ cureus.56978

8. Davenport S, Smith D, Green DJ. Barriers to a timely diagnosis of endometriosis: a qualitative systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;142(3):57 1-583. doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000005255

9. Pascoal E, Wessels JM, Aas-Eng MK, et al. Strengths and limitations of diagnostic tools for endometriosis and relevance in diagnostic test accuracy research. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022;60(3):309-327. doi:10.1002/uog.24892

10. Harzif AK, Nurbaeti P, Putri AS, et al. Factors associated with delayed diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review. J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2024;12:1291120. doi:10.1177/22840265241291120

11. Nnoaham KE, Hummelshoj L, Kennedy SH, Jenkinson C, Zondervan KT. Developing symptom-based predictive models of endometriosis as a clinical screening tool: results from a multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):692-701.e5. doi:10.1 016/j.fertnstert.2012.04.022

12. Stegmann BJ, Funk MJ, Sinaii N, et al. A logistic model for the prediction of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(1):51-55. doi:10.1016/j.fertnst ert.2007.11.038

13. Tore U, Abilgazym A, Asunsolo-del Barco A, et al. Diagnosis of endometriosis based on comorbidities: a machine learning approach. Biomedicines. 2023; 11(11):3015. doi:10.3390/biomedicines11113015

14. Nouri B, Hashemi SH, Ghadimi DJ, Roshandel S, Akhlaghdoust M. Machine learning-based detection of endometriosis: a retrospective study in a population of Iranian female patients. Int J Fertil Steril. 2024;18(4):1519. doi:10.22074/ijfs.202 4.2009338.1519

15. Goldstein A, Cohen S. Self-report symptom-based endometriosis prediction using machine learning. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):32761. doi:10.1038/s 41598-023-32761-8

16. Zhao N, Hao T, Zhang F, et al. Application of machine learning techniques in the diagnosis of endometriosis. BMC Womens Health. 2024;24(1): 33342. doi:10.1186/s12905-024-03334-2

17. Kucukakcali Z, Akbulut S, Colak C. Prediction of genomic biomarkers for endometriosis using the transcriptomic dataset. World J Clin Cases. 2025; 13(20):104556. doi:10.12998/wjcc.v13.i20.104556

18. Zhang H, Zhang H, Yang H, Shuid AN, Sandai D, Chen X. Machine learning-based integrated identification of predictive combined diagnostic biomarkers for endometriosis. Front Genet. 2023; 14:1290036. doi:10.3389/fgene.2023.1290036

19. Blass I, Sahar T, Shraibman A, Ofer D, Rappoport N, Linial M. Revisiting the risk factors for endometriosis: a machine learning approach. J Pers Med. 2022;12(7):1114. doi:10.3390/jpm12071114

20. Shrestha P, Shrestha B, Shrestha J, Chen J. Current status and future potential of machine learning in diagnostic imaging of endometriosis: a literature review. J Nepal Med Assoc. 2025;63(283) :205-211. doi:10.31729/jnma.8897

21. Ramadan ZM, Mouazen SM, Khan SS, Khan S, Farag NS. Machine learning in the early detection of endometriosis: a literature review on symptom clustering and imaging integration. Precis Future Med. 2025;9(3):117-128. doi:10.23838/pfm.2025.00177

22. Mary JJ, Shanthi V. Early detection of endometriosis: integrating medical imaging and machine learning algorithms for non-invasive diagnosis. Int Res J Adv Eng Manag. 2025;3(3):591-595. doi:10.47392/irjaem.2025.0095

23. Cao S, Li X, Zheng X, Zhang J, Ji Z, Liu Y. Identification and validation of a novel machine learning model for predicting severe pelvic endometriosis: a retrospective study. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):96093. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-96093-5

24. Balogh DB, Hudelist G, Blizņuks D, et al. The use of machine learning for early diagnosis of endometriosis based on patient self-reported data—study protocol of a multicenter trial. PLoS One. 2024;19(5):e0300186. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0300186

25. Chrysa N, Lamprini C, Maria-Konstantina C, Constantinos K. Deep learning improves accuracy of laparoscopic imaging classification for endometriosis diagnosis. J Clin Med Surg. 2024;4(1):1137. doi:10.52768/2833-5465/1137

26. Chetcuti K, Chilungulo C. Case-based review of low-field MRI in resource-constrained settings: a clinical perspective from Malawi. BJR Open. 2024;7(1):tzaf028. doi:10.1093/bjro/tzaf028

27. Lyimo BM, Popkin-Hall ZR, Giesbrecht DJ, et al. Potential opportunities and challenges of deploying next generation sequencing and CRISPR-Cas systems to support diagnostics and surveillance towards malaria control and elimination in Africa. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:757844. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.757844

28. Helmy M, Awad M, Mosa KA. Limited resources of genome sequencing in developing countries: challenges and solutions. Appl Transl Genom. 2016;9:15-19. doi:10.1016/j.atg.2016.03.003

29. Tekola-Ayele F, Rotimi CN. Translational genomics in low- and middle-income countries: opportunities and challenges. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18(4):242-247. doi:10.1159/000433518

30. Malkin RA. Barriers for medical devices for the developing world. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007;4(6):759-763. doi:10.1586/17434440.4.6.759

31. Husain G, Nasef D, Jose R, et al. SMOTE vs. SMOTEENN: a study on the performance of resampling algorithms for addressing class imbalance in regression models. Algorithms. 2025; 18(1):37. doi:10.3390/a18010037

32. Toma M. AI-Assisted Medical Diagnostics: A Clinical Guide to Next-Generation Diagnostics. New York, NY: Dawning Research Press; 2025. https://openlibrary.org/works/OL44048041W/. Accessed January 14, 2026.