ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Predicting persistent pain after total knee arthroplasty using different machine learning algorithms.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: Analytic approaches for prognostic studies of persistent pain following knee arthroplasty.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Response to Letter: Analytic approaches for prognostic studies of persistent pain following knee arthroplasty.Acta orthopaedica · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeAfter total knee arthroplasty (TKA), 10-20% of patients remain unsatisfied. Well-performing clinical prediction models can provide individualized risk estimates and stratification in terms of poor outcomes, resulting in unnecessary surgeries being avoided and patients being counseled preoperatively. We aimed to create a precise, well-performing prediction model for clinical application using different machine learning algorithms to predict those patients who will have residual pain, a low total Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the patient group who do not achieve minimally clinical important difference (MCID) in OKS 1 year after TKA.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study based on patients who had undergone primary TKA at our institution combined with 751 patient-related variables. The multivariable models used were based on the results of univariate analysis. We used the machine learning method Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). The discrimination capability of the models was measured with the area under the curve (AUC).
results11,755 patients were included in this study. There were 850 (7.2%) patients who experienced persistent pain 1 year after TKA. The AUC was 0.67. For the secondary outcomes, the AUC values were similar. The most important variables in the model were lower preoperative OKS, younger age, valgus malalignment, lower preoperative pain OKS, use of mild opioid, neuropathic pain medicine and thyroxine, and higher body mass index.
conclusionThe prediction models achieved poor AUCs. It seems clear that the prediction of pain and functional outcome after TKA is difficult, even with a large patient cohort combined with 751 patient-related variables and sophisticated machine-learning algorithms.
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.