↓ Skip to main content

Artificial Intelligence Applied to Osteoporosis: A Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Fragility Fractures From MRI Data

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Artificial Intelligence Applied to Osteoporosis: A Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Fragility Fractures From MRI Data
Published in
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, September 2018
DOI 10.1002/jmri.26280
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A current challenge in osteoporosis is identifying patients at risk of bone fracture. To identify the machine learning classifiers that predict best osteoporotic bone fractures and, from the data, to highlight the imaging features and the anatomical regions that contribute most to prediction performance. Prospective (cross-sectional) case-control study. Thirty-two women with prior fragility bone fractures, of mean age = 61.6 and body mass index (BMI) = 22.7 kg/m2 , and 60 women without fractures, of mean age = 62.3 and BMI = 21.4 kg/m2 . Field Strength/ Sequence: 3D FLASH at 3T. Quantitative MRI outcomes by software algorithms. Mechanical and topological microstructural parameters of the trabecular bone were calculated for five femoral regions, and added to the vector of features together with bone mineral density measurement, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) score, and personal characteristics such as age, weight, and height. We fitted 15 classifiers using 200 randomized cross-validation datasets. Statistical Tests: Data: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality. Model Performance: sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, F1-test, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Two-sided t-test, with P < 0.05 for statistical significance. The top three performing classifiers are RUS-boosted trees (in particular, performing best with head data, F1 = 0.64 ± 0.03), the logistic regression and the linear discriminant (both best with trochanteric datasets, F1 = 0.65 ± 0.03 and F1 = 0.67 ± 0.03, respectively). A permutation of these classifiers comprised the best three performers for four out of five anatomical datasets. After averaging across all the anatomical datasets, the score for the best performer, the boosted trees, was F1 = 0.63 ± 0.03 for All-features dataset, F1 = 0.52 ± 0.05 for the no-MRI dataset, and F1 = 0.48 ± 0.06 for the no-FRAX dataset. Data Conclusion: Of many classifiers, the RUS-boosted trees, the logistic regression, and the linear discriminant are best for predicting osteoporotic fracture. Both MRI and FRAX independently add value in identifying osteoporotic fractures. The femoral head, greater trochanter, and inter-trochanter anatomical regions within the proximal femur yielded better F1-scores for the best three classifiers. 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Master 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 81 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 15%
Engineering 14 9%
Computer Science 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 85 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,546,615
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
#2,374
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,351
of 341,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
#27
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,613 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.