MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388763465 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2023.16.023

A PRECISION HEALTH APPROACH FOR OSTEOARTHRITIS: PREDICTION OF RAPID KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS PROGRESSION USING AUTOMATED MACHINE LEARNING

2023· article· en· W4388763465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simone Castagno, Mark Birch, Mihaela van der Schaar, Andrew W. McCaskie

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicineDiseaseClinical trialJoint diseasePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Precision health aims to develop personalised and proactive strategies for predicting, preventing, and treating complex diseases such as osteoarthritis (OA), a degenerative joint disease affecting over 300 million people worldwide. Due to OA heterogeneity, which makes developing effective treatments challenging, identifying patients at risk for accelerated disease progression is essential for efficient clinical trial design and new treatment target discovery and development. Objectives This study aims to create a trustworthy and interpretable precision health tool that predicts rapid knee OA progression based on baseline patient characteristics using an advanced automated machine learning (autoML) framework, “Autoprognosis 2.0”. Methods All available 2-year follow-up periods of 600 patients from the FNIH OA Biomarker Consortium were analysed using “Autoprognosis 2.0” in two separate approaches, with distinct definitions of clinical outcomes: multi-class predictions (categorising patients into non-progressors, pain-only progressors, radiographic-only progressors, and both pain and radiographic progressors) and binary predictions (categorising patients into non-progressors and progressors). Models were developed using a training set of 1352 instances and all available variables (including clinical, X-ray, MRI, and biochemical features), and validated through both stratified 10-fold cross-validation and hold-out validation on a testing set of 339 instances. Model performance was assessed using multiple evaluation metrics, such as AUC-ROC, AUC-PRC, F1-score, precision, and recall. Additionally, interpretability analyses were carried out to identify important predictors of rapid disease progression. Results Our final models yielded high accuracy scores for both multi-class predictions (AUC-ROC: 0.858, 95% CI: 0.856–0.860; AUC-PRC: 0.675, 95% CI: 0.671–0.679; F1-score: 0.560, 95% CI: 0.554–0.566) and binary predictions (AUC-ROC: 0.717, 95% CI: 0.712–0.722; AUC-PRC: 0.620, 95% CI: 0.616–0.624; F1-score: 0.676, 95% CI: 0.673–0679). Important predictors of rapid disease progression included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores and MRI features. Our models were further successfully validated using a hold-out dataset, which was previously omitted from model development and training (AUC-ROC: 0.877 for multi-class predictions; AUC-ROC: 0.746 for binary predictions). Additionally, accurate ML models were developed for predicting OA progression in a subgroup of patients aged 65 or younger (AUC-ROC: 0.862, 95% CI: 0.861–0.863 for multi-class predictions; AUC-ROC: 0.736, 95% CI: 0.734–0.738 for binary predictions). Conclusions This study presents a reliable and interpretable precision health tool for predicting rapid knee OA progression using “Autoprognosis 2.0”. Our models provide accurate predictions and offer insights into important predictors of rapid disease progression. Furthermore, the transparency and interpretability of our methods may facilitate their acceptance by clinicians and patients, enabling effective utilisation in clinical practice. Future work should focus on refining these models by increasing the sample size, integrating additional features, and using independent datasets for external validation. Declaration of Interest (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207