Machine learning algorithm to predict fragility fractures and identification of important features – an explainable approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In this study, we developed ML algorithms to predict fragility fractures, considering the occurrence of fractures at different skeletal sites. We investigated seven ML algorithms (LASSO, Elastic Net, Random Forest, Decision Tree, Neural Network, XGBoost and Logistic Regression) using the data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) with participants aged 50 years or older. We considered 73 baseline features, including age, sex, menopause status, and bone mineral density (BMD), and the outcome was the first incidence of fracture at any of the following sites: hip, spine, pelvis, ribs, shoulder, and forearm, over a 19-year follow-up period. Data were divided into training (70%) and testing (30%) datasets. The ML algorithms were trained on the training dataset and evaluated on the test dataset in terms of the ROC_AUC. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was performed to identify the important features that contribute to the prediction of fracture, and to investigate the interaction among these features. In total, 7,753 subjects were included in the study. Approximately 72% were female, and the average age was 67 years. We found that the XGBoost algorithm had a slightly better ROC_AUC (0.70; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.73). From the SHAP analysis, we found that BMD was the most important feature that contributed to the prediction. The other important features include age, previous fracture, osteoporosis and menopausal status. Total hip BMD interacted the most with femoral neck BMD, lumbar spine BMD interacted the most with weight, previous fracture status interacted the most with femoral neck BMD, and age interacted the most with lumbar spine BMD. This study demonstrated that XGBoost was the most effective algorithm for predicting fragility fractures. In addition, we identified important features that contribute to the prediction of fragility fractures. Intervention focusing on these features will help to prevent the incidence of these fractures. Lay summaries We developed machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict fragility fractures, considering the incidence of fractures at different skeletal sites, including the hip, spine, pelvis, ribs, shoulder, or forearm, using 19 years of follow-up data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). We investigated seven ML algorithms and found that XGBoost had slightly better performance compared to other algorithms. We identified important factors that increase the risk of fractures, including BMD, age, and previous fracture. We also demonstrated how the interaction between these factors increases the risk of fractures. The intervention focusing on these factors will help to prevent fragility fractures.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».