ArticleScientific reports2026
An explainable machine learning approach to predict fragility fractures and the identification of important features.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we developed ML algorithms to predict fragility fractures, considering the occurrence of fractures at different skeletal sites, using the data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) with participants aged 50 years or older. We considered 73 baseline features, and the outcome was the first incidence of fracture at any of the following sites: hip, spine, pelvis, ribs, shoulder, and forearm. The ML algorithms were evaluated in terms of the ROC_AUC. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was performed to identify the important features and to investigate the interaction among these features. In total, 7753 subjects were included in the study. Approximately 72% were female, and the average age was 67 years. We found that the XGBoost algorithm had a slightly better ROC_AUC (0.70; 95% CI 0.67, 0.73). From the SHAP analysis, we found that BMD was the most important feature and the total hip BMD interacted the most with femoral neck BMD. This study demonstrated that XGBoost was a marginally superior ML algorithm for predicting fragility fractures. In addition, we identified important features that contribute to the prediction of fragility fractures. Intervention focusing on these features will help to prevent the incidence of these fractures.
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.