Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27848006›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2017

Clinical fracture risk evaluated by hierarchical agglomerative clustering.

C Kruse, P Eiken, P Vestergaard

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Lumbar MRI-Based Deep Learning for Osteoporosis Prediction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Artificial intelligence in spine care: current applications and future utility.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Applications of Machine Learning in Bone and Mineral Research.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. FRAX: re-adjust or re-think.Archives of osteoporosis · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Risk Assessment of Hip Fracture Based on Machine Learning.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Machine Learning in Orthopedics: A Literature Review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C KruseDepartment of Endocrinology, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 19, 9100, Aalborg, Denmark. C.kruse@rn.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5590-2245
P EikenDepartment of Cardiology, Nephrology and Endocrinology, Nordsjaellands Hospital, Hilleroed, Denmark.
P VestergaardDepartment of Endocrinology, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 19, 9100, Aalborg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clustering analysis can identify subgroups of patients based on similarities of traits. From data on 10,775 subjects, we document nine patient clusters of different fracture risks. Differences emerged after age 60 and treatment compliance differed by hip and lumbar spine bone mineral density profiles.

introductionThe purposes of this study were to establish and quantify patient clusters of high, average and low fracture risk using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm.

methodsRegional and national Danish patient data on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans, medication reimbursement, primary healthcare sector use and comorbidity of female subjects were combined. Standardized variable means, Euclidean distances and Ward's D2 method of hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC), were used to form the clustering object. K number of clusters was selected with the lowest cluster containing less than 250 subjects. Clusters were identified as high, average or low fracture risk based on bone mineral density (BMD) characteristics. Cluster-based descriptive statistics and relative Z-scores for variable means were computed.

resultsTen thousand seven hundred seventy-five women were included in this study. Nine (k = 9) clusters were identified. Four clusters (n = 2886) were identified based on low to very low BMD with differences in comorbidity, anthropometrics and future bisphosphonate compliance. Two clusters of younger subjects (n = 1058, mean ages 30 and 51 years) were identified as low fracture risk with high to very high BMD. A mean age of 60 years was the earliest that allowed for separation of high-risk clusters. DXA scan results could identify high-risk subjects with different antiresorptive treatment compliance levels based on similarities and differences in lumbar spine and hip region BMD.

conclusionsUnsupervised HAC presents a novel technology to improve patient characteristics in bone disease beyond traditional T-score-based diagnosis. Technological and validation limitations need to be overcome to improve its use in internal medicine. Current DXA scan indication guidelines could be further improved by clustering algorithms.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsBone DensityCluster AnalysisDenmarkFemaleHip JointHumansLumbar VertebraeMachine LearningMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalClusteringDensitometryMachine learningOsteoporosisRisk factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.