Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38276109›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Predicting Functional Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review.

Nick D Clement, Rosie Clement, Abigail Clement

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nick D ClementEdinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8792-0659
Rosie ClementEdinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK.
Abigail ClementEdinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK.
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

arthroplastyfunctionhipmachine learningoutcomepredictionPROMs

Identifiers

PMID38276109
PMCPMC10816364
OpenAlexW4391098969

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.