Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39212689›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024

Optimal inputs for machine learning models in predicting total joint arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review.

Parshva A Sanghvi, Aakash K Shah, Christian J Hecht, Amir H Karimi, Atul F Kamath

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Parshva A SanghviDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Institute Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Mail code A41, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Aakash K ShahDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Institute Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Mail code A41, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Christian J HechtDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Institute Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Mail code A41, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Amir H KarimiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Institute Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Mail code A41, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Atul F KamathDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Institute Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Mail code A41, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. akamath@post.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9214-2756

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMachine learning (ML) models may offer a novel solution to reducing postoperative complication rates and improving post-surgical outcomes after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, the variety of different ML models that exist paired with the increasing number of potential inputs can make the implementation of this tool challenging. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to assess the most optimal inputs of different ML models in predicting postoperative (1) medical outcomes, (2) orthopedic outcomes, and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after total joint arthroplasty.

methodsThe PubMed, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar databases were utilized to identify all studies evaluating ML models predicting outcomes following TJA between January 1, 2000, and June 23, 2023 (PROSPERO study protocol registration: CRD42023437586). The mean risk of bias in non-randomized studies-of interventions score, was 13.8 ± 0.5. Our initial query yielded 656 articles, of which 25 articles aligned with our aims, examining over 20 machine learning models and 1,555,300 surgeries. The area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, inputs, and the importance of each input were reported.

resultsTwelve studies evaluating medical complications with 13 ML models reported AUCs ranging from 0.57 to 0.997 and accuracy between 88% and 99.98%. Key predictors included age, hyper-coagulopathy, total number of diagnoses, admission month, and malnutrition. Five studies evaluating orthopedic complications with 10 ML models reported AUCs from 0.49 to 0.93 and accuracy ranging from 92 to 97%, with age, BMI, CCI, AKSS scores, and height identified as key predictors. Ten studies evaluating PROMs comprising of 12 different ML models had an AUC ranging from 0.453 to 0.97 ranked preoperative PROMs as the post-predictive input. Overall, age was the most predictive risk factor for complications post-total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

conclusionThese studies demonstrate the predictive capabilities of these models for anticipating complications and outcomes. Furthermore, these studies also highlight ML models' ability to identify non-classical variables not commonly considered in addition to confirming variables known to be crucial. To advance the field, forthcoming research should adhere to established guidelines for model development and training, employ industry-standard input parameters, and subject their models to external validity assessments.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, ReplacementMachine LearningPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsHumansMachine learningOutcome predictionTotal joint arthroplasty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.