Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37986117›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2023

A Machine Learning-Based Preclinical Osteoporosis Screening Tool (POST): Model Development and Validation Study.

Qingling Yang, Huilin Cheng, Jing Qin, Alice Yuen Loke, Fei Wan Ngai, Ka Chun Chong, Dexing Zhang, Yang Gao, Harry Haoxiang Wang, Zhaomin Liu and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A comprehensive evaluation of seven osteoporosis screening tools.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Qingling YangSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2058-9970
Huilin ChengSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6117-3832
Jing QinSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7059-0929
Alice Yuen LokeSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-8139
Fei Wan NgaiSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1760-5105
Ka Chun ChongThe Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5610-1298
Dexing ZhangThe Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0073-4752
Yang GaoDepartment of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0439-4804
Harry Haoxiang WangSchool of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0361-6527
Zhaomin LiuSchool of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2460-7785
Chun HaoSchool of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9881-6504
Yao Jie XieSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9289-4985
Hong Kong Polytechnic University · HKSun Yat-sen University · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · HKHong Kong Baptist University · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Identifying persons with a high risk of developing osteoporosis and preventing the occurrence of the first fracture is a health care priority. Most existing osteoporosis screening tools have high sensitivity but relatively low specificity. Objective: We aimed to develop an easily accessible and high-performance preclinical risk screening tool for osteoporosis using a machine learning-based method among the Hong Kong Chinese population. Methods: Participants aged 45 years or older were enrolled from 6 clinics in the 3 major districts of Hong Kong. The potential risk factors for osteoporosis were collected through a validated, self-administered questionnaire and then filtered using a machine learning-based method. Bone mineral density was measured with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at the clinics; osteoporosis was defined as a t score of -2.5 or lower. We constructed machine learning models, including gradient boosting machines, support vector machines, and naive Bayes, as well as the commonly used logistic regression models, for the prediction of osteoporosis. The best-performing model was chosen as the final tool, named the Preclinical Osteoporosis Screening Tool (POST). Model performance was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and other metrics. Results: Among the 800 participants enrolled in this study, the prevalence of osteoporosis was 10.6% (n=85). The machine learning-based Boruta algorithm identified 15 significantly important predictors from the 113 potential risk factors. Seven variables were further selected based on their accessibility and convenience for daily self-assessment and health care practice, including age, gender, education level, decreased body height, BMI, number of teeth lost, and the intake of vitamin D supplements, to construct the POST. The AUC of the POST was 0.86 and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were all 0.83. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1-score were 0.41, 0.98, and 0.56, respectively. Conclusions: The machine learning-based POST was conveniently accessible and exhibited accurate discriminative capabilities for the prediction of osteoporosis; it might be useful to guide population-based preclinical screening of osteoporosis and clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

health careHong Kongmachine learningolder peopleosteoporosisscreening tool

Identifiers

PMID37986117
PMCPMC10686208
OpenAlexW4388870160

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.