Machine learning as an adjunct to expert observation in classification of radiographic knee osteoarthritis: findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent type of arthritis. Many approaches exist for characterising radiographic knee OA, including machine learning (ML). AIMS: To examine Kellgren and Lawrence (K&L) scores from ML and expert observation, minimum joint space and osteophyte in relation to pain and function. METHODS: Participants from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study, comprising individuals born in Hertfordshire from 1931 to 1939, were analysed. Radiographs were assessed by clinicians and ML (convolutional neural networks) for K&L scoring. Medial minimum joint space and osteophyte area were ascertained using the knee OA computer-aided diagnosis (KOACAD) program. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was administered. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was implemented for minimum joint space, osteophyte, and observer- and ML-derived K&L scores in relation to pain (WOMAC pain score > 0) and impaired function (WOMAC function score > 0). RESULTS: 359 participants (aged 71-80) were analysed. Among both sexes, discriminative capacity regarding pain and function was fairly high for observer-derived K&L scores [area under curve (AUC): 0.65 (95% CI 0.57, 0.72) to 0.70 (0.63, 0.77)]; results were similar among women for ML-derived K&L scores. Discriminative capacity was moderate among men for minimum joint space in relation to pain [0.60 (0.51, 0.67)] and function [0.62 (0.54, 0.69)]. AUC < 0.60 for other sex-specific associations. DISCUSSION: Observer-derived K&L scores had higher discriminative capacity regarding pain and function compared to minimum joint space and osteophyte. Among women, discriminative capacity was similar for observer- and ML-derived K&L scores. CONCLUSION: ML as an adjunct to expert observation for K&L scoring may be beneficial due to the efficiency and objectivity of ML.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".