ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Development and external validation of models to improve prediction of osteoporosis in elderly women: interpretable machine learning.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As populations age and the prevalence of osteoporosis (OP) increases, osteoporotic fractures substantially raise disability and mortality and impose growing economic burdens, threatening health and quality of life. This study aimed to develop and externally validate a reliable, practical machine learning model to predict OP in older women using routine clinical test results and comorbidity data. Methods: We retrospectively assembled an internal dataset from NHANES (2003-2020) and randomly split it 70:30 into training and test sets. An external cohort from a Chinese tertiary hospital was used for validation. Predictors were selected using LASSO in the training set. Five algorithms (XGBoost, SVM, RF, LightGBM, and Naive Bayes) were tuned, and model performance was evaluated on the test set and in the external cohort. Calibration curves and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess calibration and clinical net benefit. Feature contributions were quantified with Shapley additive explanations (SHAP). Results: Among 3,950 women in the internal dataset, 833 (21.1%) had OP; in the external cohort (n=338), 167 (49.4%) had OP. SHAP ranked predictors (high to low) as: age, drinking, diabetes, eGFR, HbA1c, BMI, HDL, TG, BUN, and TBIL. After hyperparameter tuning, RF achieved an AUC of 0.805 in the internal test set and 0.740 in the external cohort; in the internal test set, accuracy was 0.82, precision 0.83, and specificity 0.97. Calibration was acceptable, and DCA indicated clinical utility across relevant thresholds. Conclusion: A random forest model using readily available clinical data predicts osteoporosis risk in older women with robust internal and external performance. The deployed model outputs calibrated probabilities at the patient level, provides case level explanations using SHAP, and supports dynamic rescoring as new routine results become available, enabling individualized risk management in routine care.
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.