MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing hip fracture risk prediction by statistical modeling and texture analysis on DXA images

2020· article· en· W3005904004 on OpenAlexaff
Fatemeh Jazinizadeh, Cheryl E. Quenneville

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmHip fractureMedicineFracture (geology)OrthodonticsFemurDentistryOsteoporosisSurgeryInternal medicineMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year in the US more than 300,000 older adults suffer from hip fractures. While protective measures exist, identification of those at greatest risk by DXA scanning has proved inadequate. This study proposed a new technique to enhance hip fracture risk prediction by accounting for many contributing factors to the strength of the proximal femur. Twenty-two isolated cadaveric femurs were DXA scanned, 16 of which had been mechanically tested to failure. A function consisting of the calculated modes from the statistical shape and appearance modeling (to consider the shape and BMD distribution), homogeneity index (representing trabecular quality), BMD, age and sex of the donor was created in a training set and used to predict the fracture load in a test group. To classify patients as "high risk" or "low risk", fracture load thresholds were investigated. Hip fracture load estimation was significantly enhanced using the new technique in comparison to using t-score or BMD alone (average R² of 0.68, 0.32, and 0.50, respectively) (P < 0.05). Using a fracture cut-off of 3400 N correctly predicted risk in 94% of specimens, a substantial improvement over t-score classification (38%). Ultimately, by identifying patients at high risk more accurately, devastating hip fractures can be prevented through applying protective measures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207