ArticleACR open rheumatology2024
Prediction of Early Adverse Events After THA: A Comparison of Different Machine-Learning Strategies Based on 262,356 Observations From the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) Dataset.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct proteomic CSF profiles in genetic frontotemporal lobar degeneration.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Optimizing the management of periprosthetic infections with artificial intelligence: current evidence and future directions.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Hemi-Versus Total Hip Arthroplasty in Femoral Neck Fractures? Predicting Failure on a 10-Year Data Analysis of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD).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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePreoperative risk prediction models can support shared decision-making before total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Here, we compare different machine-learning (ML) approaches to predict the six-month risk of adverse events following primary THA to obtain accurate yet simple-to-use risk prediction models.
methodsWe extracted data on primary THAs (N = 262,356) between 2010 and 2018 from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association dataset. We benchmarked a variety of ML algorithms in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for predicting the risk of revision caused by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), dislocation or periprosthetic fracture (PPF), and death. All models were internally validated against a randomly selected test cohort (one-third of the data) that was not used for training the models.
resultsThe incidences of revisions because of PJI, dislocation, and PPF were 0.8%, 0.4%, and 0.3%, respectively, and the incidence of death was 1.2%. Overall, Lasso regression with stable iterative variable selection (SIVS) produced models using only four to five input variables but with AUROC comparable to more complex models using all 32 variables available. The SIVS-based Lasso models based on age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, bearing couple, fixation, and surgical approach predicted the risk of revisions caused by PJI, dislocations, and PPF, as well as death, with AUROCs of 0.61, 0.67, 0.76, and 0.86, respectively.
conclusionOur study demonstrates that satisfactory predictive potential for adverse events following THA can be reached with parsimonious modeling strategies. The SIVS-based Lasso models may serve as simple-to-use tools for clinical risk assessment in the future.
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.