MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410494267 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-90341-0_26

Next Generation Imminent Fracture Risk Assessment Using AI

2025· book-chapter· en· W4410494267 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Edward R. Sykes, Liran Ashbel, Ravi Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in computer and information science · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsOsteoporosis CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersOsteoporosis Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceFracture (geology)Risk analysis (engineering)MedicineEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and loss of independence, particularly in older adults. While traditional tools like FRAX predict long-term fracture risks, they lack precision in identifying Imminent Fracture Risk , defined as the risk of fractures within a two-year period following an initial incident. This study develops a machine learning model that integrates demographic and clinical factors to address this gap, aiming to improve short-term fracture risk predictions and enable timely interventions. The model was trained on a dataset of 32,677 patients from the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy’s Fracture Screening and Prevention Program. It leverages an ensemble learning framework that combines Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, and AdaBoost classifiers. Using GridSearchCV for hyperparameter tuning, the model achieved an accuracy of 76%, a recall of 76%, and an AUROC of 0.73, highlighting its potential for clinical application. Despite these promising results, limitations such as the absence of Bone Mineral Density data and incomplete patient-reported information restricted the model’s generalizability. Future research should focus on expanding the dataset, incorporating real-time data from wearable devices, and utilizing advanced natural language processing techniques to handle unstructured data effectively. This study demonstrates the potential of machine learning in predicting imminent fracture risk, offering a complementary tool to traditional methods like FRAX. By improving the early identification of high-risk individuals, this approach could significantly reduce both personal and economic burdens associated with osteoporotic fractures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in computer and information scienceSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207