Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34401416›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty today2021

A Novel, Potentially Universal Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict Complications in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Sai K Devana, Akash A Shah, Changhee Lee, Andrew R Roney, Mihaela van der Schaar, Nelson F SooHoo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Joint-specific measures improve risk adjustment in total knee arthroplasty: A machine learning approach.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Sai K DevanaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Akash A ShahDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Changhee LeeDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Andrew R RoneyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Mihaela van der SchaarDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Nelson F SooHooDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Regenerative Musculoskeletal Medicine Training ProgramT32AR059033 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI John S Adams, Nicholas M. Bernthal · 2011 to 2026
$4.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR059033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere remains a lack of accurate and validated outcome-prediction models in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). While machine learning (ML) is a powerful predictive tool, determining the proper algorithm to apply across diverse data sets is challenging. AutoPrognosis (AP) is a novel method that uses automated ML framework to incorporate the best performing stages of prognostic modeling into a single well-calibrated algorithm. We aimed to compare various ML methods to AP in predictive performance of complications after TKA.

methodsThirty-eight preoperative patient demographics and clinical features from all primary TKAs performed at California-licensed hospitals between 2015 and 2017 were evaluated as predictors of major complications after TKA. Traditional logistic regression (LR), various other ML methods (XGBoost, Gradient Boosting, AdaBoost, and Random Forest), and AP were used for model building to determine discriminative power (area under receiver operating curve), calibration (Brier score), and feature importance.

resultsBetween 2015 and 2017, there were a total of 156,750 TKAs with 1109 (0.7%) total major complications. AP had the highest discriminative performance with area under receiver operating curve 0.679 compared with LR, XGBoost, Gradient Boosting, AdaBoost, and Random Forest (0.617, 0.601, 0.662, 0.657, and 0.545, respectively). AP (Brier score 0.007) had similar calibration as the other ML methods (0.006, 0.006, 0.022, 0.007, and 0.008, respectively). The variables that are most important for AP differ from those that are most important for LR.

conclusionCompared to conventional ML algorithms, AP has superior discriminative ability with similar calibration and suggests nonlinear relationships between variables in outcomes of TKA.

Indexed as

AutoPrognosisKnee replacementMachine learningPredictive modeling

Identifiers

PMID34401416
PMCPMC8349766
OpenAlexW3194869950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.