ArticleArthroplasty today2021
Machine Learning Predicts Femoral and Tibial Implant Size Mismatch for Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 3D imaging-based AI models outperform demographic models and excel in tibial sizing compared with 2D models in total knee arthroplasty planning: A systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Structured Critical Review and Descriptive Evidence Map of Validation, Uncertainty, and Workflow Integration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Optimizing arthroplasty outcomes: the impact of artificial intelligence and robotic assistance.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Machine learning models for predicting tibial intramedullary nail length.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Leveraging machine learning for duration of surgery prediction in knee and hip arthroplasty - a development and validation study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of a deep learning-based approach for preoperative decision-making in implant size for total knee arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Machine learning algorithms predict within one size of the final implant ultimately used in total knee arthroplasty with good-to-excellent accuracy.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- Discussion on the possibility of multi-layer intelligent technologies to achieve the best recover of musculoskeletal injuries: Smart materials, variable structures, and intelligent therapeutic planning.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Validation and performance of a machine-learning derived prediction guide for total knee arthroplasty component sizing.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite reasonable accuracy with preoperative templating, the search for an optimal planning tool remains an unsolved dilemma. The purpose of the present study was to apply machine learning (ML) using preoperative demographic variables to predict mismatch between templating and final component size in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) cases.
methodsThis was a retrospective case-control study of primary TKA patients between September 2012 and April 2018. The primary outcome was mismatch between the templated and final implanted component sizes extracted from the operative database. The secondary outcome was mismatch categorized as undersized and oversized. Five supervised ML algorithms were trained using 6 demographic features. Prediction accuracies were obtained as a metric of performance for binary mismatch (yes/no) and multilevel (undersized/correct/oversized) classifications.
resultsA total of 1801 patients were included. For binary classification, the best-performing algorithm for predicting femoral and tibial mismatch was the stochastic gradient boosting model (area under the curve: 0.76/0.72, calibration intercepts: 0.05/0.05, calibration slopes: 0.55/0.7, and Brier scores: 0.20/0.21). For multiclass classification, the best-performing algorithms had accuracies of 83.9% and 82.9% for predicting the concordance/mismatch of the femoral and tibial implant, respectively. Model predictions of greater than 51.0% and 47.9% represented high-risk thresholds for femoral and tibial sizing mismatch, respectively.
conclusionsML algorithms predicted templating mismatch with good accuracy. External validation is necessary to confirm the performance and reliability of these algorithms. Predicting sizing mismatch is the first step in using ML to aid in the prediction of final TKA component sizes. Further studies to optimize parameters and predictions for the algorithms are ongoing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.