MACHINE LEARNING CAN PREDICT DIFFICULTY IN ANTERIOR APPROACH TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY TO IMPROVE PATIENT SAFETY AND SURGICAL TRAINING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (AA-THA) has a steep learning curve, with higher complication rates in initial cases. Proper surgical case selection during the learning curve can reduce early risk. This study aims to identify patient and radiographic factors associated with AA-THA difficulty using Machine Learning (ML). Consecutive primary AA-THA patients from two centres, operated by two expert surgeons, were enrolled (excluding patients with prior hip surgery and first 100 cases per surgeon). K- means prototype clustering – an unsupervised ML algorithm – was used with two variables - operative duration and surgical complications within 6 weeks - to cluster operations into difficult or standard groups. Radiographic measurements (neck shaft angle, offset, LCEA, inter-teardrop distance, Tonnis grade) were measured by two independent observers. These factors, alongside patient factors (BMI, age, sex, laterality) were employed in a multivariate logistic regression analysis and used for k-means clustering. Significant continuous variables were investigated for predictive accuracy using Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC). Out of 328 THAs analyzed, 130 (40%) were classified as difficult and 198 (60%) as standard. Difficult group had a mean operative time of 106mins (range 99–116) with 2 complications, while standard group had a mean operative time of 77mins (range 69–86) with 0 complications. Decreasing inter-teardrop distance (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95–0.99, p = 0.03) and right-sided operations (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10–2.72, p = 0.02) were associated with operative difficulty. However, ROC analysis showed poor predictive accuracy for these factors alone, with area under the curve of 0.56. Inter-observer reliability was reported as excellent (ICC >0.7). Right-sided hips (for right-hand dominant surgeons) and decreasing inter-teardrop distance were associated with case difficulty in AA-THA. These data could guide case selection during the learning phase. A larger dataset with more complications may reveal further factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".