MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281563464 · doi:10.3390/biomedicines10061247

A Machine Learning Model to Predict Knee Osteoarthritis Cartilage Volume Changes over Time Using Baseline Bone Curvature

2022· article· en· W4281563464 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Bonakdari, Jean‐Pierre Pelletier, F. Abram, Johanne Martel‐Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedicines · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsPerkinElmer BiosignalUniversité de Montréal
FundersGlaxoSmithKlineNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsOsteoarthritisCartilageMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingBody mass indexKnee JointSurgeryInternal medicinePathologyAnatomyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hallmark of osteoarthritis (OA), the most prevalent musculoskeletal disease, is the loss of cartilage. By using machine learning (ML), we aimed to assess if baseline knee bone curvature (BC) could predict cartilage volume loss (CVL) at one year, and to develop a gender-based model. BC and cartilage volume were assessed on 1246 participants using magnetic resonance imaging. Variables included age, body mass index, and baseline values of eight BC regions. The outcome consisted of CVL at one year in 12 regions. Five ML methods were evaluated. Validation demonstrated very good accuracy for both genders (R ≥ 0.78), except the medial tibial plateau for the woman. In conclusion, we demonstrated, for the first time, that knee CVL at one year could be predicted using five baseline BC region values. This would benefit patients at risk of structural progressive knee OA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedicinesSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207