A Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict the Probability of (Occult) Posterior Malleolar Fractures Associated With Tibial Shaft Fractures to Guide “Malleolus First” Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop an accurate machine learning (ML) predictive model incorporating patient, fracture, and trauma characteristics to identify individual patients at risk of an (occult) PMF. METHODS: Databases of 2 studies including patients with TSFs from 2 Level 1 trauma centers were combined for analysis. Using ten-fold cross-validation, 4 supervised ML algorithms were trained in recognizing patterns associated with PMFs: (1) Bayes point machine; (2) support vector machine; (3) neural network; and (4) boosted decision tree. Performance of each ML algorithm was evaluated and compared based on (1) C-statistic; (2) calibration slope and intercept; and (3) Brier score. The best-performing ML algorithm was incorporated into an online open-access prediction tool. RESULTS: Total data set included 263 patients, of which 28% had a PMF. Training of the Bayes point machine resulted in the best-performing prediction model reflected by good C-statistic, calibration slope, calibration intercept, and Brier score of 0.89, 1.02, -0.06, and 0.106, respectively. This prediction model was deployed as an open-access online prediction tool. CONCLUSION: A ML-based prediction model accurately predicted the probability of a (occult) PMF in patients with a TSF based on patient- and fracture-specific characteristics. This prediction model can guide surgeons in their diagnostic workup and preoperative planning. Further research is required to externally validate the model before implementation in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".