Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42350824›Full record

SynthesisCalcified tissue international2026

Artificial Intelligence Approaches for Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Prediction Using Administrative Health Data: A Systematic Review.

Benjamin Bakke Hansen, Kasper Westphal Leth, Nana Roust Hansen, Bo Abrahamsen, Nicholas Rubek Fuggle, Jan Christian Brønd, Katrine Hass Rubin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Calcified tissue international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Benjamin Bakke HansenResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000, Odense, Denmark. Benjamin.Bakke.Hansen@rsyd.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5415-6811
Kasper Westphal LethOPEN (Open Patient data Explorative Network), Odense University Hospital, 5000, Odense, Denmark.
Nana Roust HansenOPEN (Open Patient data Explorative Network), Odense University Hospital, 5000, Odense, Denmark.
Bo AbrahamsenResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000, Odense, Denmark.
Nicholas Rubek FuggleMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Center, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jan Christian BrøndOPEN (Open Patient data Explorative Network), Odense University Hospital, 5000, Odense, Denmark.
Katrine Hass RubinResearch Unit OPEN, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5000, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To systematically review Machine Learning (ML) fracture risk prediction models developed solely using administrative data, evaluating their development, performance, risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, IEEE, and Web of Science following PRISMA guidelines (up to November 2025). We included studies developing or validating ML models for osteoporotic fracture risk in adults using administrative data without clinical measurements. Risk of bias and concerns for applicability were assessed using the PROBAST tool. Seven studies were included from 3435 initial records. A range of of ML models were utilized, including Random Forests, XGBoost, LASSO-regularized Logistic Regression and Neural Networks. Discriminative performance was moderate-to-good, with best Area Under the Curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.818 for osteoporotic fractures in general to 0.905 for hip fractures only. While five studies showed low risk of bias, five raised applicability concerns due to using specific subpopulations or features with database characteristics. Only two studies used external validation and none directly evaluated clinical utility of the models. ML models using solely administrative data show some promise as scalable, automated tools for fracture risk prediction without requiring manual clinical input. However, clinical implementation is hindered by limited external validation and a lack of formal utility evaluation of the models. Future research should prioritize more rigorous external validation and recalibration of the existing models, more so than the development of novel models, ensuring they are robust, interpretable, and integrable into future clinical workflows.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceOsteoporotic FracturesBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsRandom ForestRisk AssessmentAdministrative dataArtificial intelligenceFracture risk predictionMachine learningRegister dataSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42350824
PMCPMC13303480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.