ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Identifying discriminative features for diagnosis of Kashin-Beck disease among adolescents.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Prevalence of Kashin-Beck Disease in China: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Biological trace element research · 2023Pooled it
- Determination of individual factors associated with hallux valgus using SVM-RFE.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Analysis of potential genetic biomarkers using machine learning methods and immune infiltration regulatory mechanisms underlying atrial fibrillation.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- Identification and validation of differentially expressed chromatin regulators for diagnosis of aortic dissection using integrated bioinformatics analysis and machine-learning algorithms.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiagnosing Kashin-Beck disease (KBD) involves damages to multiple joints and carries variable clinical symptoms, posing great challenge to the diagnosis of KBD for clinical practitioners. However, it is still unclear which clinical features of KBD are more informative for the diagnosis of Kashin-Beck disease among adolescent.
methodsWe first manually extracted 26 possible features including clinical manifestations, and pathological changes of X-ray images from 400 KBD and 400 non-KBD adolescents. With such features, we performed four classification methods, i.e., random forest algorithms (RFA), artificial neural networks (ANNs), support vector machines (SVMs) and linear regression (LR) with four feature selection methods, i.e., RFA, minimum redundancy maximum relevance (mRMR), support vector machine recursive feature elimination (SVM-RFE) and Relief. The performance of diagnosis of KBD with respect to different classification models were evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC).
resultsOur results demonstrated that the 10 out of 26 discriminative features were displayed more powerful performance, regardless of the chosen of classification models and feature selection methods. These ten discriminative features were distal end of phalanges alterations, metaphysis alterations and carpals alterations and clinical manifestations of ankle joint movement limitation, enlarged finger joints, flexion of the distal part of fingers, elbow joint movement limitation, squatting limitation, deformed finger joints, wrist joint movement limitation.
conclusionsThe selected ten discriminative features could provide a fast, effective diagnostic standard for KBD adolescents.
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.