Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36474802›Full record

ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2022

Predicting total knee arthroplasty from ultrasonography using machine learning.

Aleksei Tiulpin, Simo Saarakkala, Alexander Mathiessen, Hilde Berner Hammer, Ove Furnes, Lars Nordsletten, Martin Englund, Karin Magnusson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Aleksei TiulpinResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Simo SaarakkalaResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Alexander MathiessenCenter for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hilde Berner HammerCenter for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ove FurnesThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Lars NordslettenFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Martin EnglundClinical Epidemiology Unit, Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Karin MagnussonCenter for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NOLund University · SENorwegian Institute of Public Health · NOOslo University Hospital · NOOulu University Hospital · FIUniversity of Oulu · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine learningMultivariate predictive modelingTotal knee replacementUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID36474802
PMCPMC9718281
OpenAlexW4308318532

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.