ArticleJournal of bone metabolism2023
Osteoporosis Feature Selection and Risk Prediction Model by Machine Learning Using a Cross-Sectional Database.
Article in Journal of bone metabolism, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Structural Analysis of Bones with Paget's Disease of Bone and Osteoporosis: Lessons from Mouse Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An explainable machine learning model for predicting one-year osteoporosis risk: development and validation in a prospective cohort.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Automatic Diagnosis of Osteoporosis Using Bone Mineral Density Measurements.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Emerging applications of feature selection in osteoporosis research: from biomarker discovery to clinical decision support.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2025Review
- Relationship between albumin-corrected anion gap and lumbar spine bone mineral density: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to verify the accuracy and validity of using machine learning (ML) to select risk factors, to discriminate differences in feature selection by ML between men and women, and to develop predictive models for patients with osteoporosis in a big database.
methodsThe data on 968 observed features from a total of 3,484 the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants were collected. To find preliminary features that were well-related to osteoporosis, logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, adaptive boosting, and support vector machine were used.
resultsIn osteoporosis feature selection by 5 ML models in this study, the most selected variables as risk factors in men and women were body mass index, monthly alcohol consumption, and dietary surveys. However, differences between men and women in osteoporosis feature selection by ML models were age, smoking, and blood glucose level. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that the area under the ROC curve for each ML model was not significantly different for either gender.
conclusionsML performed a feature selection of osteoporosis, considering hidden differences between men and women. The present study considers the preprocessing of input data and the feature selection process as well as the ML technique to be important factors for the accuracy of the osteoporosis prediction model.
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.