ArticleScientific reports2025
Identification of biomarkers for knee osteoarthritis through clinical data and machine learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of an Interpretable Deep Learning Model for Automated Kellgren-Lawrence Grading of Knee Osteoarthritis Using X-Ray Imaging.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026Article
- Advances in heterogeneity and classification of osteoarthritis.Bone research · 2026Review
- The Platelet-Rich Plasma research ecosystem: From mechanistic insights to precision treatment in knee osteoarthritis.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Machine learning prediction of osteoarthritis risk from volatile organic compound exposure using SHAP interpretation in US adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Mechanism by Which Estrogen Level Affects Knee Osteoarthritis Pain in Perimenopause and Non-Pharmacological Measures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Beyond the Surface: Nutritional Interventions Integrated with Diagnostic Imaging Tools to Target and Preserve Cartilage Integrity: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) represents a progressive degenerative disorder characterized by the gradual erosion of articular cartilage. This study aimed to develop and validate biomarker-based predictive models for KOA diagnosis using machine learning techniques. Clinical data from 2594 samples were obtained and stratified into training and validation datasets in a 7:3 ratio. Key clinical features were identified through differential analysis between KOA and control groups, combined with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. The SHapley Additive Planning (SHAP) method was employed to rank feature importance quantitatively. Based on these rankings, predictive models were constructed using Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (xGBoost), Naive Bayes (NB), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Decision Tree (DT) algorithms. Models were developed for subsets of variables, including the top 5, top 10, top 15, and all identified features. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were applied to compare diagnostic performance across models. Additionally, a risk stratification framework for KOA prediction was designed using recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). Using difference analysis and LASSO, 44 critical clinical features were identified. Among these, age, plasma prothrombin time, gender, body mass index (BMI), and prothrombin time and international normalized ratio (PTINR) emerged as the top five features, with SHAP values of 0.1990, 0.0981, 0.0471, 0.0433, and 0.0422, respectively. Machine learning analysis demonstrated that these variables provided robust diagnostic performance for KOA. In the training set, area under the curve (AUC) values for LR, RF, xGBoost, NB, SVM, and DT models were 0.947, 0.961, 0.892, 0.952, 0.885, and 0.779, respectively. Similarly, in the validation dataset, these models achieved AUC values of 0.961, 0.943, 0.789, 0.957, 0.824, and 0.76. Among them, RF consistently exhibited superior diagnostic accuracy for KOA. Additionally, RPA analysis indicated a higher prevalence of KOA among individuals aged 54 years and older. The integration of the top five clinical variables significantly enhanced the diagnostic accuracy for KOA, particularly when employing the RF model. Moreover, the RPA model offered valuable insights to assist clinicians in refining prognostic assessments and optimizing clinical decision-making processes.
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.