ArticleJournal of medical systems2025
Comparative Analysis of Feature Extraction Methods and Machine Learning Models for Predicting Osteoporosis Prevalence.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Rheumatology: From Algorithms to Clinical Impact in Osteoporosis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study systematically examined the impact of three feature selection techniques (Boruta, Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and Lasso) for optimizing four machine learning models (Random forest (RF), XGBoost, Logistic regression (LR), and Support vector machine (SVM)) in predicting bone density prevalence. Our findings revealed that varying data partitioning ratios (training and test sets: 0.6:0.4; 0.7:0.3; 0.8:0.2; 0.9:0.1) minimally impacted the prediction accuracy across all four models, a conclusion reinforced by 10-fold cross validation. Besides, principal component analysis (PCA) led to substantial accuracy degradation (0.6-0.8 range), suggesting incompatibility with this study's requirements due to the inherent complex decision boundaries in the original high-dimensional data. Comparative analysis demonstrated that the Boruta-XGBoost combination achieved superior performance (accuracy: 0.9083 ± 0.0146), significantly outperforming the Lasso-LR combination (0.7480 ± 0.0157) across all evaluation frameworks. Regarding model evaluation metrics, the RF model exhibited enhanced discriminative capacity with Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) values of 0.85, 0.81, and 0.80 under different feature selection approaches, surpassing the SVM model (0.78, 0.76, and 0.76). This advantage likely stems from RF's native capability to capture non-linear relationships and feature interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439990What 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.