Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) previously known as Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine disorder affecting women of reproductive age, yet its diagnosis remains challenging because accurate assessment often depends on investigations that are costly, less accessible, and difficult to scale in resource-constrained clinical settings. We develop and assess a cost-aware modelling framework for PCOS risk stratification, comparing an inexpensive-feature model based on demographic, symptom, anthropometric, and routine clinical variables with an augmented model that additionally incorporates laboratory and ultrasound features when fuller diagnostic work-up is available. Logistic Regression (LR) and Random Forest (RF) models are evaluated using discrimination and calibration metrics, including AUC, accuracy, F1, precision, recall, Brier score, and expected calibration error (ECE), alongside clinical utility through decision curve analysis (DCA). To support safer decision-making under constrained capacity, we further integrate conformal prediction to provide finite-sample coverage guarantees and controlled abstention. Across train-test and out-of-fold evaluations, the augmented model showed consistent performance gains over the inexpensive-feature model, with AUC increasing by 6.9% for LR and 7.4% for RF. LR exhibited more favourable calibration in most settings, while RF achieved higher precision. Decision curve analysis showed higher net benefit for the augmented model across clinically relevant threshold regions, although feature sensitivity analysis indicated that a compact subset of inexpensive predictors preserved over 80% of maximal AUC, supporting the practical value of lower-burden screening. Conformal prediction achieved 94.5% overall coverage with a 41.3% abstention rate, maintaining near-nominal validity across age and BMI subgroups. Under constrained referral capacity, prioritising highest-risk cases maximised net benefit at lower capacity levels, while uncertainty-aware deferral became more compatible with decision utility as available capacity increased. These findings support a proof-of-concept framework in which inexpensive information provides meaningful early risk stratification, while added laboratory and ultrasound inputs offer incremental value when more resource-intensive assessment is feasible.

1. H. J. Teede, M. Bahri Khomami, R. Morman, J. S. E. Laven, A. E. Joham, M. F. Costello, M. Patil, D. A. Rees, L. Berry, M. G. Cree, H. Zhao, R. J. Norman, A. Dokras, and T. T. Piltonen, “Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome, the new name for polycystic ovary syndrome: A multistep global consensus process,” The Lancet, vol. 407, pp. 2329–2339, 2026, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00717-8.
2. D. Lizneva, L. Suturina, W. Walker, S. Brakta, L. Gavrilova-Jordan, and R. Azziz, “Criteria, prevalence, and phenotypes of polycystic ovary syndrome,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 6–15, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.003.
3. P. D’Souza, D. E. Rodrigues, R. G. Kaipangala, L. K. Chacko, and J. D. Almeida, “Correlation between the physical signs, clinical parameters, and the quality of life in young women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: An explorative study,” Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 17–21, 2022, doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1993.
4. A. Ghafari, M. Maftoohi, M. E. Samarin, S. Barani, M. Banimohammad, and R. Samie, “The last update on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), diagnosis criteria and novel treatment,” Endocrine and Metabolic Science, vol. 17, Art. no. 100228, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.endmts.2025.100228.
5. C. Long, H. Feng, W. Duan, X. Chen, Y. Zhao, Y. Lan, and R. Yue, “Prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Endocrinology, vol. 13, Art. no. 980405, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.980405.
6. R. S. Hussein, S. Bin Dayel, and O. Abahussein, “Polycystic ovary syndrome and reproductive health: A comprehensive review,” Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 51, no. 12, Art. no. 269, 2024, doi: 10.31083/j.ceog5112269.
7. F. J. Barrera, E. D. L. Brown, A. Rojo, J. Obeso, H. Plata, E. P. Lincango, N. Terry, R. Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, J. E. Hall, and S. Shekhar, “Application of machine learning and artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and classification of polycystic ovarian syndrome: A systematic review,” Frontiers in Endocrinology, vol. 14, Art. no. 1106625, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1106625.
8. J. Vazquez and J. C. Facelli, “Conformal prediction in clinical medical sciences,” Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 241–252, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s41666-021-00113-8.
9. X. Xu, Y. Jiang, J. Du, H. Sun, X. Wang, and C. Zhang, “Development and validation of a prediction model for suboptimal ovarian response in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients undergoing GnRH-antagonist protocol in IVF/ICSI cycles,” Journal of Ovarian Research, vol. 17, no. 1, Art. no. 116, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s13048-024-01437-w.
10. Z. Zad, V. S. Jiang, A. T. Wolf, T. Wang, J. J. Cheng, I. C. Paschalidis, and S. Mahalingaiah, “Predicting polycystic ovary syndrome with machine learning algorithms from electronic health records,” Frontiers in Endocrinology.
11. S. A. Suha and M. N. Islam, “An extended machine learning technique for polycystic ovary syndrome detection using ovary ultrasound image,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, Art. no. 17123, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-21724-0.
12. A. Alamoudi, I. U. Khan, N. Aslam, N. Alqahtani, H. S. Alsaif, O. Al Dandan, M. Al Gadeeb, and R. Al Bahrani, “A deep learning fusion approach to diagnosis the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS),” Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing, vol. 2023, Art. no. 9686697, pp. 1–15, 2023, doi: 10.1155/2023/9686697.
13. M. Agirsoy and M. A. Oehlschlaeger, “A machine learning approach for non-invasive PCOS diagnosis from ultrasound and clinical features,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, Art. no. 33638, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-10453-9.
14. A. Zigarelli, Z. Jia, and H. Lee, “Machine-aided self-diagnostic prediction models for polycystic ovary syndrome: Observational study,” JMIR Formative Research, vol. 6, no. 3, Art. no. e29967, 2022, doi: 10.2196/29967.
15. K. Shanmugavadivel, M. D. M. S., M. T. R., T. Al-Shehari, N. A. Alsadhan, and T. E. Yimer, “Optimized polycystic ovarian disease prognosis and classification using AI based computational approaches on multi-modality data,” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 24, no. 1, Art. no. 281, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02688-9.
16. C. Tong, Y. Wu, Z. Zhuang, and Y. Yu, “A diagnostic model for polycystic ovary syndrome based on machine learning,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, Art. no. 9821, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-92630-4.
17. P. Kottarathil, “Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)—Kerala dataset,” Kaggle. Accessed: Jul. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/prasoonkottarathil/polycystic-ovary-syndrome-pcos/data
18. V. V. Khanna, K. Chadaga, N. Sampathila, S. Prabhu, V. Bhandage, and G. K. Hegde, “A distinctive explainable machine learning framework for detection of polycystic ovary syndrome,” Applied System Innovation, vol. 6, no. 2, Art. no. 32, 2023, doi: 10.3390/asi6020032.
19. M. M. Rahman, A. Islam, F. Islam, M. Zaman, M. R. Islam, M. S. Alam Sakib, and H. M. Hasan Babu, “Empowering early detection: A web-based machine learning approach for PCOS prediction,” Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, vol. 47, Art. no. 101500, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2024.101500.
20. R. Taha, H. Zain El Abdin, and T. Musleh, “Comparative analysis of supervised machine learning models for PCOS prediction using clinical data,” Journal of Engineering Research and Sciences, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 16–26, 2025, doi: 10.55708/js0406003.
21. S. Tiwari, L. Kane, D. Koundal, A. Jain, A. Alhudhaif, K. Polat, A. Zaguia, F. Alenezi, and S. A. Althubiti, “SPOSDS: A smart polycystic ovary syndrome diagnostic system using machine learning,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 203, Art. no. 117592, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117592.
22. H. Danaei Mehr and H. Polat, “Diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome through different machine learning and feature selection techniques,” Health and Technology, vol. 12, pp. 137–150, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12553-021-00613-y.
23. S. Bharati, P. Podder, and M. R. H. Mondal, “Diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome using machine learning algorithms,” in 2020 IEEE Region 10 Symposium (TENSYMP), 2020, doi: 10.1109/TENSYMP50017.2020.9230932.
24. K. M. Mohi Uddin, M. T. A. Bhuiyan, M. M. Rahman, M. M. Islam, and M. A. Uddin, “Early PCOS detection: A comparative analysis of traditional and ensemble machine learning models with advanced feature selection,” Engineering Reports, vol. 7, no. 2, Art. no. e70008, 2025, doi: 10.1002/eng2.70008.
25. B. Panjwani, J. Yadav, V. Mohan, N. Agarwal, and S. Agarwal, “Optimized machine learning for the early detection of polycystic ovary syndrome in women,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 4, Art. no. 1166, 2025, doi: 10.3390/s25041166.
26. H. M. Emara, W. El-Shafai, N. F. Soliman, A. D. Algarni, R. Alkanhel, and F. E. Abd El-Samie, “A stacked learning framework for accurate classification of polycystic ovary syndrome with advanced data balancing and feature selection techniques,” Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 16, Art. no. 1435036, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1435036.
27. A. N. Angelopoulos and S. Bates, “Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,” Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 494–591, 2023, doi: 10.1561/2200000101.
28. A. J. Vickers and E. B. Elkin, “Decision curve analysis: A novel method for evaluating prediction models,” Medical Decision Making, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 565–574, 2006, doi: 10.1177/0272989X06295361.
29. B. Van Calster, D. J. McLernon, M. van Smeden, L. Wynants, and E. W. Steyerberg, “Calibration: The Achilles heel of predictive analytics,” BMC Medicine, vol. 17, Art. no. 230, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7.
30. K. G. M. Moons, D. G. Altman, J. B. Reitsma, J. P. A. Ioannidis, P. Macaskill, E. W. Steyerberg, A. J. Vickers, D. F. Ransohoff, and G. S. Collins, “Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and elaboration,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 162, no. 1, pp. W1–W73, 2015, doi: 10.7326/M14-0698.
31. E. W. Steyerberg, Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating, 2nd ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-16399-0.
32. K. G. M. Moons, D. G. Altman, Y. Vergouwe, and P. Royston, “Prognosis and prognostic research: Application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice,” BMJ, vol. 338, Art. no. b606, 2009, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b606.
33. H. Olsson, K. Kartasalo, N. Mulliqi, M. Capuccini, P. Ruusuvuori, H. Samaratunga, B. Delahunt, C. Lindskog, E. A. Janssen, A. Blilie, L. Egevad, O. Spjuth, and M. Eklund, “Estimating diagnostic uncertainty in artificial intelligence assisted pathology using conformal prediction,” Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, Art. no. 7761, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34945-8.
34. Z. Zhang, “Missing data imputation: Focusing on single imputation,” Annals of Translational Medicine, vol. 4, no. 1, Art. no. 9, 2016, doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.12.38.
35. L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Machine Learning, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–32, 2001, doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324.
36. D. M. W. Powers, “Evaluation: From precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness & correlation,” Journal of Machine Learning Technologies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 37–63, 2011.
37. G. W. Brier, “Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability,” Monthly Weather Review, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 1–3, 1950, doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2.
38. M. P. Naeini, G. F. Cooper, and M. Hauskrecht, “Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using Bayesian binning,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX, USA, 2015, pp. 2901–2907, doi: 10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9602.
39. A. Altmann, L. Toloşi, O. Sander, and T. Lengauer, “Permutation importance: A corrected feature importance measure,” Bioinformatics, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1340–1347, 2010, doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134.
40. S. Kaufman, S. Rosset, C. Perlich, and O. Stitelman, “Leakage in data mining: Formulation, detection, and avoidance,” ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 6, no. 4, Art. no. 15, 2012, doi: 10.1145/2382577.2382579.
41. V. Vovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer, Algorithmic Learning in a Random World, 2nd ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-06649-8.
42. G. Shafer and V. Vovk, “A tutorial on conformal prediction,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 9, pp. 371–421, 2008, doi: 10.5555/1390681.1390693.
43. R. F. Barber, E. J. Candès, A. Ramdas, and R. J. Tibshirani, “Predictive inference with the jackknife+,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 486–507, 2021, doi: 10.1214/20-AOS1965.
44. C. J. Clopper and E. S. Pearson, “The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial,” Biometrika, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 404–413, 1934, doi: 10.1093/biomet/26.4.404.
45. E. R. DeLong, D. M. DeLong, and D. L. Clarke-Pearson, “Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach,” Biometrics, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 837–845, 1988, doi: 10.2307/2531595.
46. R. L. Wasserstein, A. L. Schirm, and N. A. Lazar, “Moving to a world beyond ‘p < 0.05’,” The American Statistician, vol. 73, suppl. 1, pp. 1–19, 2019, doi: 10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913.
47. G. S. Collins, J. B. Reitsma, D. G. Altman, and K. G. M. Moons, “Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement,” BMJ, vol. 350, Art. no. g7594, 2015, doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7594.
48. T. Fawcett, “An introduction to ROC analysis,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 861–874, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010.
49. Z. Noroozi, A. Orooji, and L. Erfannia, “Analyzing the impact of feature selection methods on machine learning algorithms for heart disease prediction,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, Art. no. 22588, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-49962-w.
50. D. R. Cutler, T. C. Edwards, Jr., K. H. Beard, A. Cutler, K. T. Hess, J. Gibson, and J. J. Lawler, “Random forests for classification in ecology,” Ecology, vol. 88, no. 11, pp. 2783–2792, 2007, doi: 10.1890/07-0539.1.
51. R. García-Carretero, R. Holgado-Cuadrado, and Ó. Barquero-Pérez, “Assessment of classification models and relevant features on nonalcoholic steatohepatitis using random forest,” Entropy, vol. 23, no. 6, Art. no. 763, 2021, doi: 10.3390/e23060763.
52. A. Niculescu-Mizil and R. Caruana, “Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML ’05), Bonn, Germany, 2005, pp. 625–632, doi: 10.1145/1102351.1102430.
53. A. J. Vickers, B. Van Calster, and E. W. Steyerberg, “A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis,” Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, vol. 3, Art. no. 18, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s41512-019-0064-7.
54. R. El-Yaniv and Y. Wiener, “On the foundations of noise-free selective classification,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 11, pp. 1605–1641, 2010, doi: 10.5555/1756006.1859904.

Citations by Dimensions

Citations by PlumX

Crossref Citations

No related articles were found.