ArticleScientific reports2026
In silico augmentation strategies for enhanced machine learning performance in fracture recognition.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents a machine learning framework for fracture risk prediction and in silico validation of synthetic biomedical data. A retrospective dataset comprising 169 patient records with clinically relevant variables, including age, sex, weight, height, medication status, and bone mineral density (BMD), was analyzed. Multiple classification models, including Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine, and ensemble voting classifiers, were evaluated using 5-fold stratified cross-validation. Synthetic data fidelity was assessed through statistical distribution alignment, correlation preservation, and predictive transferability between real and synthetic domains. Among the evaluated models, the Voting Hard ensemble achieved the highest classification performance with an accuracy of 85.8% and F1-score of 0.822, while Logistic Regression demonstrated the highest discriminative capability (AUC = 0.88). Synthetic data showed strong agreement with real data in marginal feature distributions but weaker preservation of inter-feature correlations. The findings demonstrate the potential of ensemble machine learning methods for fracture risk prediction while highlighting the importance of rigorous validation when utilizing synthetic biomedical datasets. This framework provides a foundation for future development of privacy-preserving and clinically relevant synthetic data applications in biomedical machine learning.
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.