Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32161842›Full record

ArticleJBMR plus2020

A Novel Fracture Prediction Model Using Machine Learning in a Community-Based Cohort.

Sung Hye Kong, Daehwan Ahn, Buomsoo Raymond Kim, Karthik Srinivasan, Sudha Ram, Hana Kim, A Ram Hong, Jung Hee Kim, Nam H Cho, Chan Soo Shin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JBMR plus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Application and prospect of machine learning in orthopaedic trauma].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Emerging applications of feature selection in osteoporosis research: from biomarker discovery to clinical decision support.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Sung Hye KongDepartment of Internal Medicine Seoul National University College of Medicine Seoul Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8791-0909
Daehwan AhnDepartment of Operations, Information and Decisions, Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA USA.
Buomsoo Raymond KimDepartment of Management Information Systems, Eller College of Management University of Arizona Tucson AZ USA.
Karthik SrinivasanDepartment of Management Information Systems, Eller College of Management University of Arizona Tucson AZ USA.
Sudha RamDepartment of Management Information Systems, Eller College of Management University of Arizona Tucson AZ USA.
Hana KimDepartment of Internal Medicine Seoul National University College of Medicine Seoul Republic of Korea.
A Ram HongDepartment of Internal Medicine Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital Chonnam.
Jung Hee KimDepartment of Internal Medicine Seoul National University College of Medicine Seoul Republic of Korea.
Nam H ChoDepartment of Preventive Medicine Ajou University School of Medicine Suwon Republic of Korea.
Chan Soo ShinDepartment of Internal Medicine Seoul National University College of Medicine Seoul Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prediction of fracture risk in osteoporotic patients has been a topic of interest for decades, and models have been developed for the accurate prediction of fracture, including the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX). As machine-learning methodologies have recently emerged as a potential model for medical prediction tools, we aimed to develop a novel fracture prediction model using machine-learning methods in a prospective community-based cohort. In this study, 2227 participants (1257 females) with a baseline bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score were enrolled from the Ansung cohort. The primary endpoint was the fragility fractures reported by patients or confirmed by X-rays. We used 3 different models: CatBoost, support vector machine (SVM), and logistic regression. During a mean 7.5-year follow-up (range, 2.5 to 10 years), fragility fractures occurred in 537 (25.6%) of participants. In predicting total fragility fractures, the area under the curve (AUC) values of the CatBoost, SVM, and logistic regression models were 0.688, 0.500, and 0.614, respectively. The AUC value of CatBoost was significantly better than that of FRAX (0.663;

Indexed as

FRACTUREMACHINE LEARNINGPREDICTION MODELPROSPECTIVE COHORT

Identifiers

PMID32161842
PMCPMC7059838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.