ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Predicting Functional Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Structured Critical Review and Descriptive Evidence Map of Validation, Uncertainty, and Workflow Integration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Optimizing arthroplasty outcomes: the impact of artificial intelligence and robotic assistance.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Quality assurance in machine Learning: Do we hit the mark for total joint arthroplasty models? A systematic review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Review
- Machine-learning prediction of 90-day readmission after primary total hip Arthroplasty: Analysis of 1,340 cases from the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry (MARCQI).Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Enhancing Outcomes in Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Multifaceted Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this review was to assess the reliability of machine learning (ML) techniques to predict the functional outcome of total hip arthroplasty. The literature search was performed up to October 2023, using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and NIH Clinical Trials. Level I to IV evidence was included. Seven studies were identified that included 44,121 patients. The time to follow-up varied from 3 months to more than 2 years. Each study employed one to six ML techniques. The best-performing models were for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes, with an area under the curve (AUC) of more than 84%. In contrast, predicting the outcome of hip-specific measures was less reliable, with an AUC of between 71% to 87%. Random forest and neural networks were generally the best-performing models. Three studies compared the reliability of ML with traditional regression analysis: one found in favour of ML, one was not clear and stated regression closely followed the best-performing ML model, and one showed a similar AUC for HRQoL outcomes but did show a greater reliability for ML to predict a clinically significant change in the hip-specific function. ML offers acceptable-to-excellent discrimination of predicting functional outcomes and may have a marginal advantage over traditional regression analysis, especially in relation to hip-specific hip functional outcomes.
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.