Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651589›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2020

Development and Internal Validation of Machine Learning Algorithms for Preoperative Survival Prediction of Extremity Metastatic Disease.

Quirina C B S Thio, Aditya V Karhade, Bas JJ Bindels, Paul T Ogink, Jos A M Bramer, Marco L Ferrone, Santiago Lozano Calderón, Kevin A Raskin, Joseph H Schwab

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic review of 99 extremity bone malignancy survival prediction models.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Quirina C B S ThioDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Aditya V KarhadeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Bas JJ BindelsDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Paul T OginkDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jos A M BramerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marco L FerroneDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Santiago Lozano CalderónDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kevin A RaskinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Joseph H SchwabDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Center for Clinical Research (United States) · USHerat University · AFHarvard University · USInternational Drug Development · FRUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA preoperative estimation of survival is critical for deciding on the operative management of metastatic bone disease of the extremities. Several tools have been developed for this purpose, but there is room for improvement. Machine learning is an increasingly popular and flexible method of prediction model building based on a data set. It raises some skepticism, however, because of the complex structure of these models. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were (1) to develop machine learning algorithms for 90-day and 1-year survival in patients who received surgical treatment for a bone metastasis of the extremity, and (2) to use these algorithms to identify those clinical factors (demographic, treatment related, or surgical) that are most closely associated with survival after surgery in these patients.

methodsAll 1090 patients who underwent surgical treatment for a long-bone metastasis at two institutions between 1999 and 2017 were included in this retrospective study. The median age of the patients in the cohort was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR] 54 to 72 years), 56% of patients (610 of 1090) were female, and the median BMI was 27 kg/m (IQR 23 to 30 kg/m). The most affected location was the femur (70%), followed by the humerus (22%). The most common primary tumors were breast (24%) and lung (23%). Intramedullary nailing was the most commonly performed type of surgery (58%), followed by endoprosthetic reconstruction (22%), and plate screw fixation (14%). Missing data were imputed using the missForest methods. Features were selected by random forest algorithms, and five different models were developed on the training set (80% of the data): stochastic gradient boosting, random forest, support vector machine, neural network, and penalized logistic regression. These models were chosen as a result of their classification capability in binary datasets. Model performance was assessed on both the training set and the validation set (20% of the data) by discrimination, calibration, and overall performance.

resultsWe found no differences among the five models for discrimination, with an area under the curve ranging from 0.86 to 0.87. All models were well calibrated, with intercepts ranging from -0.03 to 0.08 and slopes ranging from 1.03 to 1.12. Brier scores ranged from 0.13 to 0.14. The stochastic gradient boosting model was chosen to be deployed as freely available web-based application and explanations on both a global and an individual level were provided. For 90-day survival, the three most important factors associated with poorer survivorship were lower albumin level, higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and rapid growth primary tumor. For 1-year survival, the three most important factors associated with poorer survivorship were lower albumin level, rapid growth primary tumor, and lower hemoglobin level.

conclusionsAlthough the final models must be externally validated, the algorithms showed good performance on internal validation. The final models have been incorporated into a freely accessible web application that can be found at https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/extremitymetssurvival/. Pending external validation, clinicians may use this tool to predict survival for their individual patients to help in shared treatment decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesMachine LearningOrthopedic ProceduresAgedBone NeoplasmsBostonClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID31651589
PMCPMC7438151
OpenAlexW2981879567

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.