A machine learning approach reveals features related to clinicians’ diagnosis of clinically relevant knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify highly ranked features related to clinicians' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee OA. METHODS: General practitioners (GPs) and secondary care physicians (SPs) were recruited to evaluate 5-10 years follow-up clinical and radiographic data of knees from the CHECK cohort for the presence of clinically relevant OA. GPs and SPs were gathered in pairs; each pair consisted of one GP and one SP, and the paired clinicians independently evaluated the same subset of knees. A diagnosis was made for each knee by the GP and SP before and after viewing radiographic data. Nested 5-fold cross-validation enhanced random forest models were built to identify the top 10 features related to the diagnosis. RESULTS: Seventeen clinician pairs evaluated 1106 knees with 139 clinical and 36 radiographic features. GPs diagnosed clinically relevant OA in 42% and 43% knees, before and after viewing radiographic data, respectively. SPs diagnosed in 43% and 51% knees, respectively. Models containing top 10 features had good performance for explaining clinicians' diagnosis with area under the curve ranging from 0.76-0.83. Before viewing radiographic data, quantitative symptomatic features (i.e. WOMAC scores) were the most important ones related to the diagnosis of both GPs and SPs; after viewing radiographic data, radiographic features appeared in the top lists for both, but seemed to be more important for SPs than GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Random forest models presented good performance in explaining clinicians' diagnosis, which helped to reveal typical features of patients recognized as clinically relevant knee OA by clinicians from two different care settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".