SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Optimal inputs for machine learning models in predicting total joint arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Structured Critical Review and Descriptive Evidence Map of Validation, Uncertainty, and Workflow Integration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
39212689What 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.