ArticleBMC research notes2025
PrOsteoporosis: predicting osteoporosis risk using NHANES data and machine learning approach.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Prediction of Low Bone Density in Elderly Patients with Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms.Balkan medical journal · 2025Article
- Construction and validation of a multi-dimensional health indicator-driven osteoporosis risk prediction model: a large-sample cross-sectional study based on two centers.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Emerging applications of feature selection in osteoporosis research: from biomarker discovery to clinical decision support.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2025Review
- Development of a machine learning-based predictive model for osteoporosis risk and its application in clinical decision support.Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOsteoporosis, prevalent among the elderly population, is primarily diagnosed through bone mineral density (BMD) testing, which has limitations in early detection. This study aims to develop and validate a machine learning approach for osteoporosis identification by integrating demographic data, laboratory and questionnaire data, offering a more practical and effective screening alternative.
methodsIn this study, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were analyzed to explore factors linked to osteoporosis. After cleaning, 8766 participants with 223 variables were studied. Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance and SelectKBest were employed to select the import features. Four Machine learning algorithms (RF, NN, LightGBM and XGBoost.) were applied to examine osteoporosis, with performance comparisons made. Data balancing was done using SMOTE, and metrics like F1 score, and AUC were evaluated for each algorithm.
resultsThe LightGBM model outperformed others with an F1 score of 0.914, an MCC of 0.831, and an AUC of 0.970 on the training set. On the test set, it achieved an F1 score of 0.912, an MCC of 0.826, and an AUC of 0.972. Top predictors for osteoporosis were height, age, and sex.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential of machine learning models in assessing an individual's risk of developing osteoporosis, a condition that significantly impacts quality of life and imposes substantial healthcare costs. The superior performance of the LightGBM model suggests a promising tool for early detection and personalized prevention strategies. Importantly, identifying height, age, and sex as top predictors offers critical insights into the demographic and physiological factors that clinicians should consider when evaluating patients' risk profiles.
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.