ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2022
Predicting total knee arthroplasty from ultrasonography using machine learning.
Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of machine learning in identifying candidates for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- The use of artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal ultrasound: a systematic review of the literature.La Radiologia medica · 2024Pooled it
- Optimizing arthroplasty outcomes: the impact of artificial intelligence and robotic assistance.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Patterns of Shared Variation in Knee Ultrasound for Osteoarthritis: A Machine Learning Approach.Osteoarthritis imaging · 2025Article
- Ultrasound quantification of knee meniscal extrusion: the potential of weight-bearing and dynamic evaluations. A systematic review.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Advances in Ultrasound-Guided Surgery and Artificial Intelligence Applications in Musculoskeletal Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Radiomics analysis of patellofemoral joint improves knee replacement risk prediction: Data from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST).Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2024Article
- Article
- Machine Learning Approaches to the Prediction of Osteoarthritis Phenotypes and Outcomes.Current rheumatology reports · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence in knee osteoarthritis: A comprehensive review for 2022.Osteoarthritis imaging · 2023Article
- Prediction of knee joint pain in Tai Chi practitioners: a cross-sectional machine learning approach.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the value of ultrasonographic data in predicting total knee replacement (TKR). Design: Data from the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker study (MUST) was linked to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register to form a 5-7 year prospective cohort study of 630 persons (69% women, mean (SD) age 64 (8.7) years). We examined the predictive power of ultrasound (US) features, i.e. osteophytes, meniscal extrusion, synovitis in the suprapatellar recess, femoral cartilage thickness, and quality for future knee osteoarthritis (OA) surgery. We investigated 4 main settings for multivariate predictive modeling: 1) clinical predictors (age, sex, body mass index, knee injury, familial OA and workload), 2) radiographic data (assessed by the Kellgren Lawrence grade, KL) with clinical predictors, 3) US features and clinical predictors. Finally, we also considered an ensemble of models 2) and 3) and used it as our fifth model. All models were compared using the Average Precision (AP) and the Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) metrics. Results: Clinical predictors yielded AP of 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.23) and AUC of 0.69 (0.58-0.79). Clinical predictors with KL grade yielded AP of 0.20 (0.12-0.33) and AUC of 0.81 (0.67-0.90). The clinical variables with ultrasound yielded AP of 0.17 (0.08-0.30) and AUC of 0.79 (0.69-0.86). Conclusion: Ultrasonographic examination of the knee may provide added value to basic clinical and demographic descriptors when predicting TKR. While it does not achieve the same predictive performance as radiography, it can provide additional value to the radiographic examination.
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.