MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559441478 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.23130

Principal component analysis in the evaluation of osteoarthritis

2016· article· en· W2559441478 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie E. Calce, Helen K. Kurki, Darlene A. Weston, Lisa Gould

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisOsteoarthritisPelvisMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to demonstrate advantages of principal component analysis (PCA) as a standardized procedure in the evaluation of osteoarthritis (OA) in a skeletal series to: (1) compute aggregate scores for joint complexes that accurately capture pathological expression, (2) reveal which variables describe the most sample variation in OA, (3) enable inter- and intra-sample comparison of results, and (4) formulate predictive models from component-based arthritic scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample (144 males, 145 females) is drawn from a large skeletal cemetery collection of modern Europeans of known sex, age, and occupation. OA data was collected using standard ranked categorical scoring. PCA was conducted separately on lumbar spine, pelvis, and knee regions to generate composite OA scores from eigenequations of the first and second principal components (PC). RESULTS: Results demonstrate that as severity in OA increases, so does the distribution of OA within the joint surface. In each region, PCA produced the same general pattern with eburnation scoring driving significant changes in composite OA scores, representing earlier to later stages of cartilage degeneration. The distribution of arthritic traits determined by PCA produced an OA score that quantifies the expression of joint changes in varied biological joint structures from most moveable to least mobile, the final stage being joint fusion. OA scores are most highly variable in the lumbar region for both males and females, as compared to the pelvis and knee. CONCLUSIONS: PCA is a simple, non-parametric method of extracting relevant information from complex OA datasets and summarizes variation based on correlated multi-attributes to reveal a simplified structure of OA expression. Multivariate techniques like PCA should be used to describe discrete OA samples, and are useful to compute population-specific representative measurements for idiopathic joint OA in a skeletal sample.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical AnthropologySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207