ArticleRMD open2026
Predicting total knee replacement in knee osteoarthritis using a machine learning-guided approach in patients of the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI).
Article in RMD open, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a pragmatic model to predict total knee replacement (TKR) in knee osteoarthritis using non-imaging clinical, genetic and lifestyle data with machine learning (ML)-guided feature selection.
methodsWe analysed 3790 Osteoarthritis Initiative participants. Nested ML feature selection on the training set identified 15 informative variables. Classifiers were benchmarked, then a multivariable logistic regression was fit on the full cohort. Performance was summarised by discrimination (area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI) and calibration (Brier score). To assess the incremental value of genetics, we refit an otherwise identical clinical model excluding the Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) and compared specificity at fixed sensitivities using Bonferroni-adjusted McNemar tests. A prespecified analysis examined performance by baseline Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade (KL 0-1 vs KL ≥2).
resultsOn the test set, classifier AUCs ranged 0.716-0.748, with Elastic Net and XGBoost performing best. The final logistic model fit on the full cohort achieved AUC 0.765 (95% CI 0.736 to 0.793) with acceptable calibration (Brier 0.097). Performance remained robust by disease stage, with higher discrimination in pre-radiographic knees (KL 0-1: AUC 0.827) and moderate discrimination in KL ≥2 (AUC 0.720); decile plots indicated broadly aligned observed versus predicted risks. PRS added modest, statistically significant gains in specificity at several fixed sensitivities without materially changing AUC.
conclusionsWe present a pragmatic, non-imaging, ML-informed model that predicts TKR with clinically acceptable discrimination and calibration using routinely collected data. This framework provides a practical basis for individualised risk stratification and decision support without reliance on imaging.
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.