Assessing the Value of Imaging Data in Machine Learning Models to Predict Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) affects over 650 million patients worldwide. Total knee replacement is aimed at end-stage OA to relieve symptoms of pain, stiffness and reduced mobility. However, the role of imaging modalities in monitoring symptomatic disease progression remains unclear. This study aimed to compare machine learning (ML) models, with and without imaging features, in predicting the two-year Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score for knee OA patients. We included 2408 patients from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) database, with 629 patients from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST) database. The clinical dataset included 18 clinical features, while the imaging dataset contained an additional 10 imaging features. Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) was set to 24, reflecting meaningful physical impairment. Clinical and imaging dataset models produced similar area under curve (AUC) scores, highlighting low differences in performance AUC < 0.025). For both clinical and imaging datasets, Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) models performed the best in the external validation, with a clinically acceptable AUC of 0.734 (95% CI 0.687-0.781) and 0.747 (95% CI 0.701-0.792), respectively. The five features identified included educational background, family history of osteoarthritis, co-morbidities, use of osteoporosis medications and previous knee procedures. This is the first study to demonstrate that ML models achieve comparable performance with and without imaging features.
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 | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".