Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study

Ezgi Darıcı Kurt; Miray Nilüfer Cimşit Kemahlı; Emine Karabuk; M. Faruk Köse

doi:10.70058/cjm.1973205

Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate how closely artificial intelligence (AI)-generated clinical recommendations correspond with established international guidelines for endometriosis management, using structured clinical scenarios.

Methods: This study assessed the consistency of AI-generated responses with the 2022 ESHRE Endometriosis Guideline. Fifteen predefined clinical scenarios were designed to reflect the main areas of endometriosis management. Each scenario was submitted using a standardized prompt to ensure consistency. AI responses were evaluated using predefined guideline-based assessment matrices to determine concordance and to explore performance differences across clinical domains.

Results: A total of 45 AI-generated responses across 15 clinical scenarios were evaluated. Overall concordance with ESHRE guideline-based reference answers was 93.3% (42/45). Diagnostic scenarios demonstrated 88.9% concordance, while medical management, surgical/multidisciplinary, and high-risk scenarios demonstrated 100% concordance. Fertility-related scenarios showed 83.3% concordance. Complete inter-run consistency was observed in 13 of 15 scenarios (86.7%), with variability limited to Cases 2 and 3. Fleiss’ kappa indicated a high level of inter-run agreement within the evaluated scenarios (κ = 0.831; 95% CI, 0.583–1.000).

Conclusion: Artificial intelligence systems show meaningful alignment with evidence-based guidance in fundamental aspects of endometriosis management. However, variability in complex scenarios reveals important limitations. Although AI tools may support education or serve as an adjunct in clinical decision-making, they cannot replace expert clinical judgment in specialized gynecologic care.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval was not required for this study in accordance with applicable institutional and national guidelines. The study did not involve human participants, human data, human tissue, or animals; therefore, participant consent was not required.

References

Giudice LC. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(25):2389-98. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1000274.
Zondervan KT, Becker CM, Missmer SA. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(13):1244-56. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1810764.
De Graaff AA, D’Hooghe TM, Dunselman GAJ, Dirksen CD, Hummelshoj L, Simoens S, et al. The significant effect of endometriosis on physical, mental, and social well-being: results from an international cross-sectional survey. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(10):2677-85. doi:10.1093/humrep/det284.
Nnoaham KE, Hummelshoj L, Webster P, D’Hooghe T, de Cicco Nardone F, de Cicco Nardone C, et al. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):366-73.e8. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.090.
Hadfield R, Mardon H, Barlow D, Kennedy S. Delay in the diagnosis of endometriosis: a survey of women from the USA and the UK. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(4):878-80. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019270.
Vercellini P, Buggio L, Frattaruolo MP, Borghi A, Dridi D, Somigliana E. Medical treatment of endometriosis-related pain. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:68-91. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.01.015.
Becker CM, Bokor A, Heikinheimo O, Horne A, Jansen F, Kiesel L, et al. ESHRE guideline: endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(2):hoac009. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoac009.
Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PAC, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1458-65. doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458.

Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(6):887. doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887.
Upadhyay U, Gradisek A, Iqbal U, Dhar E, Li YC, Syed-Abdul S. Call for the responsible artificial intelligence in the healthcare. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2023;30(1):e100920. doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100920.
Jiang F, Jiang Y, Zhi H, Dong Y, Li H, Ma S, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present, and future. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2017;2(4):230-43. doi:10.1136/svn-2017-000101.
Kung TH, Cheatham M, Medenilla A, Sillos C, De Leon L, Elepaño C, et al. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLoS Digit Health. 2023;2(2):e0000198. doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198.
Harskamp RE, De Clercq L. Performance of ChatGPT as an AI-assisted decision support tool in medicine: a proof-of-concept study for interpreting symptoms and management of common cardiac conditions (AMSTELHEART-2). Acta Cardiol. 2024;79(3):358-66. doi:10.1080/00015385.2024.2303528.
Reicher L, Lutsker G, Michaan N, Grisaru D, Laskov I. Exploring the role of artificial intelligence, large language models: comparing patient-focused information and clinical decision support capabilities to the gynecologic oncology guidelines. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2025;168(2):419-27. doi:10.1002/ijgo.15869.
Bulletti C, Franasiak JM, Busnelli A, Sciorio R, Berrettini M, Aghajanova L, et al. Artificial intelligence, clinical decision support algorithms, mathematical models, calculators applications in infertility: systematic review and hands-on digital applications. Mayo Clin Proc Digit Health. 2024;2(4):518-32. doi:10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.08.007.
Rao A, Kim J, Kamineni M, Pang M, Lie W, Succi MD. Evaluating ChatGPT as an adjunct for radiologic decision-making. medRxiv [Preprint]. 2023:2023.02.02.23285399. doi:10.1101/2023.02.02.23285399.
Cao Y, Chen RC, Katz AJ. Why is a small sample size not enough? Oncologist. 2024;29(9):761-3. doi:10.1093/oncolo/oyae162.
Brown TB, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan J, Dhariwal P, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2020;33:1877-901. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165
Savran A. Performance and reliability of state-of-the-art LLMs in complex hand surgery scenarios: a prospective cross-sectional, double-blinded study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2026;34(1):10225536261416605. doi:10.1177/10225536261416605.
Gilson A, Safranek CW, Huang T, Socrates V, Chi L, Taylor RA, et al. How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? the implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e45312. doi:10.2196/45312.
Wan N, Jin Q, Chan J, Xiong G, Applebaum S, Gilson A, et al. Humans and large language models in clinical decision support: a study with medical calculators. arXiv [Preprint]. 2024:2411.05897v2. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.05897.
Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B, Kuleshov V, DePristo M, Chou K, et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):24-9. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0316-z.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Clinical Sciences (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ezgi Darıcı Kurt ^*
0000-0001-9570-1165
Türkiye

Miray Nilüfer Cimşit Kemahlı
0000-0003-0891-0765
Türkiye

Emine Karabuk
0000-0003-2055-3000
Türkiye

M. Faruk Köse
0000-0001-6136-5597
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

September 16, 2026

Publication Date

September 30, 2026

Submission Date

June 18, 2026

Acceptance Date

August 27, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 3 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.70058/cjm.1973205

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA62WL76XB

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Darıcı Kurt, E., Cimşit Kemahlı, M. N., Karabuk, E., & Köse, M. F. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study. Cerasus Journal of Medicine, 3(3), 204-220. https://doi.org/10.70058/cjm.1973205

AMA

1.Darıcı Kurt E, Cimşit Kemahlı MN, Karabuk E, Köse MF. Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study. Cerasus J Med. 2026;3(3):204-220. doi:10.70058/cjm.1973205

Chicago

Darıcı Kurt, Ezgi, Miray Nilüfer Cimşit Kemahlı, Emine Karabuk, and M. Faruk Köse. 2026. “Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study”. Cerasus Journal of Medicine 3 (3): 204-20. https://doi.org/10.70058/cjm.1973205.

EndNote

Darıcı Kurt E, Cimşit Kemahlı MN, Karabuk E, Köse MF (September 1, 2026) Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study. Cerasus Journal of Medicine 3 3 204–220.

IEEE

[1]E. Darıcı Kurt, M. N. Cimşit Kemahlı, E. Karabuk, and M. F. Köse, “Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study”, Cerasus J Med, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 204–220, Sept. 2026, doi: 10.70058/cjm.1973205.

ISNAD

Darıcı Kurt, Ezgi - Cimşit Kemahlı, Miray Nilüfer - Karabuk, Emine - Köse, M. Faruk. “Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study”. Cerasus Journal of Medicine 3/3 (September 1, 2026): 204-220. https://doi.org/10.70058/cjm.1973205.

JAMA

1.Darıcı Kurt E, Cimşit Kemahlı MN, Karabuk E, Köse MF. Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study. Cerasus J Med. 2026;3:204–220.

MLA

Darıcı Kurt, Ezgi, et al. “Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study”. Cerasus Journal of Medicine, vol. 3, no. 3, Sept. 2026, pp. 204-20, doi:10.70058/cjm.1973205.

Vancouver

1.Ezgi Darıcı Kurt, Miray Nilüfer Cimşit Kemahlı, Emine Karabuk, M. Faruk Köse. Artificial Intelligence in Endometriosis Management: A Guideline-Concordance Study. Cerasus J Med. 2026 Sep. 1;3(3):204-20. doi:10.70058/cjm.1973205