Prediction of subsequent fragility fractures: application of machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) has shown exceptional promise in various domains of medical research. However, its application in predicting subsequent fragility fractures is still largely unknown. In this study, we aim to evaluate the predictive power of different ML algorithms in this area and identify key features associated with the risk of subsequent fragility fractures in osteoporotic patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients presented with fragility fractures at our Fracture Liaison Service, categorizing them into index fragility fracture (n = 905) and subsequent fragility fracture groups (n = 195). We independently trained ML models using 27 features for both male and female cohorts. The algorithms tested include Random Forest, XGBoost, CatBoost, Logistic Regression, LightGBM, AdaBoost, Multi-Layer Perceptron, and Support Vector Machine. Model performance was evaluated through 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: The CatBoost model outperformed other models, achieving 87% accuracy and an AUC of 0.951 for females, and 93.4% accuracy with an AUC of 0.990 for males. The most significant predictors for females included age, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), 25(OH)D, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), parathyroid hormone (PTH), femoral neck Z-score, menopause age, number of pregnancies, phosphorus, calcium, and body mass index (BMI); for males, the predictors were serum CRP, femoral neck T-score, PTH, hip T-score, BMI, BUN, creatinine, alkaline phosphatase, and spinal Z-score. CONCLUSION: ML models, especially CatBoost, offer a valuable approach for predicting subsequent fragility fractures in osteoporotic patients. These models hold the potential to enhance clinical decision-making by supporting the development of personalized preventative strategies.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".