Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37728768›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2024

Establish and validate the reliability of predictive models in bone mineral density by deep learning as examination tool for women.

Wei- Chieh Hung, Yih-Lon Lin, Tien-Tsai Cheng, Wei-Leng Chin, Li-Te Tu, Chih-Kui Chen, Chih-Hui Yang, Chih-Hsing Wu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Consensus statement on the application of artificial intelligence in osteoporosis screening and management: perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Wei- Chieh HungDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Medicine, E-Da Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5163-8712
Yih-Lon LinDepartment of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8215-2977
Tien-Tsai ChengDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Wei-Leng ChinDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Medicine, E-Da Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Li-Te TuEnterprise Resource Planning Technical Support and Research and Design Department, InfoChamp Systems Corporation, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chih-Kui ChenEnterprise Resource Planning Technical Support and Research and Design Department, InfoChamp Systems Corporation, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chih-Hui YangDepartments of Biological Science and Technology, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. chyang@isu.edu.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4676-5792
Chih-Hsing WuInstitute of Gerontology, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. paulo@mail.ncku.edu.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0504-2053
E-Da Hospital · TWChang Gung University · TWI-Shou University · TWNational Cheng Kung University Hospital · TWNational Yunlin University of Science and Technology · TW

Funding

E-Da hospital EDAHP110007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While FRAX with BMD could be more precise in estimating the fracture risk, DL-based models were validated to slightly reduce the number of under- and over-treated patients when no BMD measurements were available. The validated models could be used to screen for patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis. PURPOSE: Fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) is useful in classifying the fracture risk level, and precise prediction can be achieved by estimating both clinical risk factors and bone mineral density (BMD) using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). However, DXA is not frequently feasible because of its cost and accessibility. This study aimed to establish the reliability of deep learning (DL)-based alternative tools for screening patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis.

methodsParticipants were enrolled from the National Bone Health Screening Project of Taiwan in this cross-sectional study. First, DL-based models were built to predict the lowest T-score value in either the lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck and their respective BMD values. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare the agreement between the models and DXA. Second, the predictive model to classify patients with a high fracture risk was built according to the estimated BMD from the first step and the FRAX score without BMD. The performance of the model was compared with the classification based on FRAX with BMD.

resultsApproximately 10,827 women (mean age, 65.4 ± 9.4 years) were enrolled. In the prediction of the lumbar spine BMD, total hip BMD, femoral neck BMD, and lowest T-score, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) was 0.099, 0.089, 0.076, and 0.68, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a nonsignificant difference between the predictive models and DXA. The FRAX score with femoral neck BMD for major osteoporotic fracture risk was 9.7% ± 6.7%, whereas the risk for hip fracture was 3.3% ± 4.6%. Comparison between the classification of FRAX with and without BMD revealed the accuracy rate, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 78.8%, 64.6%, and 89.9%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy rate, PPV, and NPV of the classification model were 0.913 (95% confidence interval: 0.904-0.922), 83.5%, 71.2%, and 92.2%, respectively.

conclusionWhile FRAX with BMD could be more precise in estimating the fracture risk, DL-based models were validated to slightly reduce the number of under- and over-treated patients when no BMD measurements were available. The validated models could be used to screen for patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis.

Indexed as

Deep LearningOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedBone DensityCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFemur NeckHumansLumbar VertebraeMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBone healthBone mineral densityClassification modelFRAXModel validationPrediction model

Identifiers

PMID37728768
OpenAlexW4386878591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.