ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Machine learning models for predicting tibial intramedullary nail length.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms for predicting tibial intramedullary nail length from patient characteristics.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTibial intramedullary nailing (IMN) represents a standard treatment for fractures of the tibial shaft. Nevertheless, accurately predicting the appropriate nail length prior to surgery remains a challenging endeavour. Conventional techniques frequently depend on data obtained intraoperatively, which may prolong surgical time and elevate radiation exposure. This study employs anthropometric measurements to evaluate and contrast the efficacy of machine learning (ML) models in predicting tibial IMN length.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 163 patients who had undergone tibial IMN. Anthropometric data were collected, including the subject's height, shoe size, olecranon-to-5th metacarpal distance (OM), and tibial tuberosity-to-medial malleolus distance (TTMM). Four ML models, namely linear regression, random forest, decision tree, and XGBoost, were employed for the purpose of predicting tibial IMN length. The performance of the models was evaluated using the mean squared error (MSE) and the R-squared values.
resultsThe linear regression model demonstrated superior performance compared to the random forest, decision tree, and XGBoost models, with an R-squared value of 0.89, an MSE of 117.53, and a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 10.84 mm. The strongest correlation with IMN length was demonstrated by TTMM (r = 0.911), followed by height (r = 0.899) and OM (r = 0.811). Furthermore, TTMM provided the greatest contribution to prediction accuracy, thereby supporting its use as a reliable predictor in clinical settings. The correlation between shoe size and the dependent variable was weaker (r = 0.823), and the inclusion of shoe size in the model negatively impacted the prediction accuracy. Despite their ability to handle non-linear relationships, the random forest and XGBoost models yielded higher MSE values, indicating limited improvement over linear regression. These findings underscore the linear nature of the relationship between anthropometric variables and IMN length, with linear regression offering the most reliable predictions.
conclusionCombining anthropometric measurements with ML models, particularly linear regression, effectively predicts IMN length. This approach can streamline preoperative planning by reducing intraoperative measurements and minimizing surgery time and radiation exposure. Further validation with larger datasets is necessary to confirm these findings across diverse populations.
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.