Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35456239›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Prediction of Complications and Surgery Duration in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Machine Learning: The Necessity of Modified Algorithms and Specific Data.

Igor Lazic, Florian Hinterwimmer, Severin Langer, Florian Pohlig, Christian Suren, Fritz Seidl, Daniel Rückert, Rainer Burgkart, Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Optimal inputs for machine learning models in predicting total joint arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Artificial intelligence in arthroplasty].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Igor LazicDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.
Florian HinterwimmerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0273-0643
Severin LangerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.
Florian PohligDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.
Christian SurenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.
Fritz SeidlDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.
Daniel RückertInstitute for AI and Informatics in Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.
Rainer BurgkartDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.
Rüdiger von Eisenhart-RotheDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Orthopaedics, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany.
TUM Klinikum · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine Learning (ML) in arthroplasty is becoming more popular, as it is perfectly suited for prediction models. However, results have been heterogeneous so far. We hypothesize that an accurate ML model for outcome prediction in THA must be able to compute arthroplasty-specific data. In this study, we evaluate a ML approach applying data from two German arthroplasty-specific registries to predict adverse outcomes after THA, after careful evaluations of ML algorithms, outcome and input variables by an interdisciplinary team of data scientists and surgeons.

methodsData of 1217 cases of primary THA from a single center were derived from two German arthroplasty-specific registries between 2016 to 2019. The XGBoost algorithm was adjusted and applied. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and AUC were calculated.

resultsFor the prediction of complications, the ML algorithm achieved an accuracy of 80.3%, a sensitivity of 31.0%, a specificity of 89.4% and an AUC of 64.1%. For the prediction of surgery duration, the ML algorithm yielded an accuracy of 81.7%, a sensitivity of 58.2%, a specificity of 91.6% and an AUC of 89.1%. The feature importance indicated non-linear outcomes for age, height, weight and surgeon. No relevant linear correlations were found.

conclusionThe attunement of input and output data as well as the modifications of the ML algorithm permitted the development of a feasible ML model for the prediction of complications and surgery duration.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencehip surgerymachine learningsupervised learningtotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35456239
PMCPMC9032696
OpenAlexW4223498126

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.