ArticleDigital health
A machine learning-based model for "In-time" prediction of periprosthetic joint infection.
Article in Digital health. 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning Based Diagnostic Models for Hip and Knee Prosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026Pooled it
- Prediction Models for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Systematic Review of Traditional and Machine Learning Approaches.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Spine Surgery Duration.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Optimizing the management of periprosthetic infections with artificial intelligence: current evidence and future directions.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Diagnosing orthopaedic infection by identifying neutrophils in whole histology slide images with machine learning trained on publicly available datasets.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- Early Prediction of 90-Day Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Hip Arthroplasty for Proximal Femur Fracture Using Machine Learning: Development and Temporal Validation of a Predictive Model.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Application of autoantibody markers based on phage display immunoprecipitation sequencing technology in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- The Application of artificial intelligence in periprosthetic joint infection.Journal of advanced research · 2026Review
- Predicting periprosthetic joint Infection: Evaluating supervised machine learning models for clinical application.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Article
- Microbiological Sampling in Total Knee Arthroplasty After Post-Traumatic Osteoarthritis: Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection and the Debate Around Sampling Unremarkable Tissue.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Agreement Analysis Among Hip and Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infections Classifications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Strategies for Preoperative PJI Diagnosis: Integrative Analysis of Serum and Synovial Fluid Markers.Journal of inflammation research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous criteria had limited value in early diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Here, we constructed a novel machine learning (ML)-derived, "in-time" diagnostic system for PJI and proved its validity. Methods: We filtered "in-time" diagnostic indicators reported in the literature based on our continuous retrospective cohort of PJI and aseptic prosthetic loosening patients. With the indicators, we developed a two-level ML model with six base learners including Elastic Net, Linear Support Vector Machine, Kernel Support Vector Machine, Extra Trees, Light Gradient Boosting Machine and Multilayer Perceptron), and one meta-learner, Ensemble Learning of Weighted Voting. The prediction performance of this model was compared with those of previous diagnostic criteria (International Consensus Meeting in 2018 (ICM 2018), etc.). Another prospective cohort was used for internal validation. Based on our ML model, a user-friendly web tool was developed for swift PJI diagnosis in clinical practice. Results: A total of 254 patients (199 for development and 55 for validation cohort) were included in this study with 38.2% of them diagnosed as PJI. We included 21 widely accessible features including imaging indicators (X-ray and CT) in the model. The sensitivity and accuracy of our ML model were significantly higher than ICM 2018 in development cohort (90.6% vs. 76.1%, Conclusions: Our novel ML-derived PJI "in-time" diagnostic system demonstrated significantly improved diagnostic potency for surgical decision-making compared with the commonly used criteria. Moreover, our web-based tool greatly assisted surgeons in distinguishing PJI patients comprehensively. Level of evidence: Diagnostic Level III.
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.