| Literature DB >> 25822373 |
Pascal Caillet1, Sarah Klemm2, Michel Ducher3, Alexandre Aussem2, Anne-Marie Schott1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Hip fractures commonly result in permanent disability, institutionalization or death in elderly. Existing hip-fracture predicting tools are underused in clinical practice, partly due to their lack of intuitive interpretation. By use of a graphical layer, Bayesian network models could increase the attractiveness of fracture prediction tools. Our aim was to study the potential contribution of a causal Bayesian network in this clinical setting. A logistic regression was performed as a standard control approach to check the robustness of the causal Bayesian network approach.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25822373 PMCID: PMC4378915 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120125
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Logical constraints applied on the structural learning stage.
| Age | BMI | BMD | Gait speed | 5STST | History of fracture | Parental history of fracture | Chronic diseases | Vitamin D use | GC use | Psychotropes use | Alcohol | Tobacco smoking | History of fall | Hip fracture | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | |
| BMI | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | |||||||||||
| BMD | ■ | ■ | ■ | ||||||||||||
| Gait speed | ■ | ■ | ■ | ||||||||||||
| 5STST | ■ | ■ | ■ | ||||||||||||
| History of fracture | ■ | ||||||||||||||
| Parental history of fracture | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | |
| Chronic diseases | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ||||||||||
| Vitamin D use | ■ | ||||||||||||||
| GC use | ■ | ■ | |||||||||||||
| Psychotropes use | ■ | ■ | |||||||||||||
| Alcohol | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ||||||||
| Tobacco smoking | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ■ | ||||||||
| History of fall | ■ | ■ | ■ | ||||||||||||
| Hip fracture |
A black square means “cannot be directed torwards”. For example, in the “Age” column, presence of a square in the “Parental history of fracture” line encodes the assumption that parental history of fracture cannot be directed torwards the age of the patient.
Fig 1Causal Bayesian network structure.
Characteristics of the study patients at inclusion (n = 7547).
| Variable (name in the graph) | N (%) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| <80 y | 3960 (52.5) |
| 80-<85 y | 2623 (34.8) |
| 85-<90 y | 832 (11.0) |
| > = 90 y | 132 (1.70) |
|
| |
| <18.5 | 220(2.90) |
| 18.5–30 | 6361 (84.3) |
| >30 | 966 (12.8) |
|
| |
| <0.6 m.s-1 | 979 (13.0) |
| 0.6-<0.85 m.s-1 | 2668 (35.3) |
| 0.85-<1 m.s-1 | 1968 (26.1) |
| > = 1 m.s-1 | 1932 (25.6) |
|
| |
| 0–20g/week | 6335 (83.9) |
| >20g/week | 1212 (16.1) |
|
| |
| Never | 6493 (86.0) |
| Former | 801 (10.6) |
| Actual | 253 (3.40) |
|
| |
| No | 5534 (73.3) |
| Yes | 2013 (26.7) |
|
| |
| No | 6872 (91.1) |
| Yes | 675 (8.90) |
|
| |
| No | 7316 (96.9) |
| Yes | 231 (3.10) |
|
| |
| 0–1 | 2182 (28.9) |
| > = 2 | 5365 (71.1) |
|
| |
| 1-<16s | 4590 (60.8) |
| 16s-<23s | 1901 (25.2) |
| >23s | 916 (12.1) |
| Incapacity | 140 (1.80) |
|
| |
| No | 7303 (96.7) |
| Yes | 251 (3.30) |
|
| |
| No | 6484 (85.9) |
| Yes | 1063 (14.1) |
|
| |
| No | 3516 (46.6) |
| Yes | 4031 (53.4) |
|
| |
| T-score >-2.5 SD | 1955 (25.9) |
| T-score <-2.5 SD | 5592 (74.1) |
|
| |
| No | 7258 (96.2) |
| Yes | 289 (3.80) |
Results of logistic regression and causal Bayesian network modeling (n = 7547).
| Final Multivariate Logistic regression | Bayesian Network | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | ORa (95% CI) | p | OR | Predicted probability of fracture |
|
| ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | 0.0344 | |
| Yes | 1.32 (1.02–1.69) | 0.032 | 1.22 | 0.0418 |
|
| ||||
| No | / | / | Reference | 0.0384 |
| Yes | / | / | 1.01 | 0.0388 |
|
| ||||
| No | / | / | Reference | 0.0380 |
| Yes | / | / | 1.07 | 0.0408 |
|
| ||||
| 0–1 | / | Reference | 0.0355 | |
| > = 2 | / | / | 1.11 | 0.0395 |
|
| ||||
| No | / | / | / | / |
| Yes | / | / | / | / |
|
| ||||
| 1-<16s | / | / | Reference | 0.0312 |
| 16s-<23s | / | / | 1.42 | 0.0439 |
| >23s | / | / | 1.94 | 0.0588 |
| Incapacity | / | / | 2.11 | 0.0637 |
|
| ||||
| <80 | Reference | Reference | 0.0347 | |
| 80-<85 | 1.42 (1.07–1.88) | 0.016 | 1.15 | 0.0397 |
| 85-<90 | 2.39 (1.71–3.34) | <0.0001 | 1.41 | 0.0482 |
| > = 90 | 3.45 (1.95–6.12) | <0.0001 | 1.79 | 0.0604 |
|
| ||||
| T-score >-2.5 SD | Reference | Reference | 0.0122 | |
| T-score <-2.5 SD | 3.54 (2.29–5.46) | <0.0001 | 4.03 | 0.0475 |
|
| ||||
| <18.5 | 1.67 (0.98–2.87) | 0.06 | 1.13 | 0.0441 |
| 18.5–30 | Reference | Reference | 0.0390 | |
| >30 | 0.64 (0.42–0.98) | 0.04 | 0.84 | 0.0332 |
|
| ||||
| > = 1 m.s-1 | Reference | Reference | 0.0146 | |
| 0.85-<1 m.s-1 | 1.69 (1.06–2.71) | 0.004 | 1.76 | 0.0254 |
| 0.6-<0.85 m.s-1 | 3.04 (1.99–4.64) | <0.0001 | 3.42 | 0.0483 |
| <0.6 m.s-1 | 4.71 (2.99–7.43) | <0.0001 | 6.20 | 0.0841 |
|
| ||||
| 0–20g/week | / | / | / | / |
| >20g/week | / | / | / | / |
|
| ||||
| Never | / | / | / | / |
| Former | / | / | / | / |
| Actual | / | / | / | / |
|
| ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | 0.0381 | |
| Yes | 1.39 (1.06–1.80) | 0.014 | 1.03 | 0.0391 |
|
| ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | 0.0381 | |
| Yes | 1.86 (1.10–3.14) | 0.020 | 1.21 | 0.0459 |
/ Variable not included in the final model.
* P<0.05 = statistically significant.
** Variable directly linked to hip-fracture given the graph.
& Predicted probability of fracture according to the causal Bayesian network model.
Comparison of predictive performances of logistic regression and causal Bayesian network.
| Indice | Logistic regression | Bayesian network | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youden Index | 0.36 | 0.33 | / |
| Sensibility (95% CI) | 0.71 (0.65–0.76) | 0.70 (0.65–0.75) | / |
| Specificity (95% CI) | 0.65 (0.64–0.66) | 0.62 (0.61–0.63) | / |
| Positive predictive value (95% CI) | 0.08 (0.07–0.09) | 0.07 (0.06–0.08) | / |
| Negative predictive value (95% CI) | 0.98 (0.978–0.986) | 0.98 (0.977–0.985) | / |
| Positive Likelihood Ratio (95% CI) | 2.05 (1.89–2.22) | 1.87 (1.72–2.02) | / |
| Negative Likelihood Ratio (95% CI) | 0.44 (0.37–0.43) | 0.47 (0.39–0.57) | / |
| Area under curve (95% CI) | 0.72 (0.70–0.75) | 0.71 (0.68–0.73) | 0.06 |
* Test of contrast between ROC curves,
p>0.05 means no statistical differences between area under curves.
Fig 2Comparison of ROC curves for each model.