Literature DB >> 27848006

Clinical fracture risk evaluated by hierarchical agglomerative clustering.

C Kruse1,2, P Eiken3,4, P Vestergaard5,6.   

Abstract

Clustering analysis can identify subgroups of patients based on similarities of traits. From data on 10,775 subjects, we document nine patient clusters of different fracture risks. Differences emerged after age 60 and treatment compliance differed by hip and lumbar spine bone mineral density profiles.
INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to establish and quantify patient clusters of high, average and low fracture risk using an unsupervised machine learning algorithm.
METHODS: Regional and national Danish patient data on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans, medication reimbursement, primary healthcare sector use and comorbidity of female subjects were combined. Standardized variable means, Euclidean distances and Ward's D2 method of hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC), were used to form the clustering object. K number of clusters was selected with the lowest cluster containing less than 250 subjects. Clusters were identified as high, average or low fracture risk based on bone mineral density (BMD) characteristics. Cluster-based descriptive statistics and relative Z-scores for variable means were computed.
RESULTS: Ten thousand seven hundred seventy-five women were included in this study. Nine (k = 9) clusters were identified. Four clusters (n = 2886) were identified based on low to very low BMD with differences in comorbidity, anthropometrics and future bisphosphonate compliance. Two clusters of younger subjects (n = 1058, mean ages 30 and 51 years) were identified as low fracture risk with high to very high BMD. A mean age of 60 years was the earliest that allowed for separation of high-risk clusters. DXA scan results could identify high-risk subjects with different antiresorptive treatment compliance levels based on similarities and differences in lumbar spine and hip region BMD.
CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised HAC presents a novel technology to improve patient characteristics in bone disease beyond traditional T-score-based diagnosis. Technological and validation limitations need to be overcome to improve its use in internal medicine. Current DXA scan indication guidelines could be further improved by clustering algorithms.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clustering; Densitometry; Machine learning; Osteoporosis; Risk factors

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27848006     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-016-3828-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  34 in total

1.  CLUSTAG: hierarchical clustering and graph methods for selecting tag SNPs.

Authors:  S I Ao; Kevin Yip; Michael Ng; David Cheung; Pui-Yee Fong; Ian Melhado; Pak C Sham
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2004-12-07       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality.

Authors:  Vijaya Sundararajan; Toni Henderson; Catherine Perry; Amanda Muggivan; Hude Quan; William A Ghali
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Exercise and bone mineral density.

Authors:  P D Chilibeck; D G Sale; C E Webber
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Risk of hip fracture according to the World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia and osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; B Jonsson; C De Laet; A Dawson
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.398

5.  The incidence of osteopenia and osteoporosis in women with hip osteoarthritis scheduled for cementless total joint replacement.

Authors:  Tatu J Mäkinen; Jessica J Alm; Hanna Laine; Erkki Svedström; Hannu T Aro
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 4.398

6.  Pervasive sharing of genetic effects in autoimmune disease.

Authors:  Chris Cotsapas; Benjamin F Voight; Elizabeth Rossin; Kasper Lage; Benjamin M Neale; Chris Wallace; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Jeffrey C Barrett; Timothy Behrens; Judy Cho; Philip L De Jager; James T Elder; Robert R Graham; Peter Gregersen; Lars Klareskog; Katherine A Siminovitch; David A van Heel; Cisca Wijmenga; Jane Worthington; John A Todd; David A Hafler; Stephen S Rich; Mark J Daly
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 5.917

7.  Assessment of individual fracture risk: FRAX and beyond.

Authors:  Joop P W van den Bergh; Tineke A C M van Geel; Willem F Lems; Piet P Geusens
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.096

8.  FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK.

Authors:  J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; H Johansson; E McCloskey
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-02-22       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Validation of a combined comorbidity index.

Authors:  M Charlson; T P Szatrowski; J Peterson; J Gold
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 10.  Fractures, epilepsy, and antiepileptic drugs.

Authors:  Richard H Mattson; Barry E Gidal
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.937

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Artificial intelligence, osteoporosis and fragility fractures.

Authors:  Uran Ferizi; Stephen Honig; Gregory Chang
Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 5.006

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence in spine care: current applications and future utility.

Authors:  Alexander L Hornung; Christopher M Hornung; G Michael Mallow; J Nicolás Barajas; Augustus Rush; Arash J Sayari; Fabio Galbusera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Matthew Colman; Frank M Phillips; Howard S An; Dino Samartzis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-03-27       Impact factor: 2.721

3.  Attenuated glutamate induced ROS production by antioxidative compounds in neural cell lines.

Authors:  Haolin Xin; Ying Cui; Zhongping An; Qian Yang; Xuan Zou; Ning Yu
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 4.036

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

Authors:  Uran Ferizi; Harrison Besser; Pirro Hysi; Joseph Jacobs; Chamith S Rajapakse; Cheng Chen; Punam K Saha; Stephen Honig; Gregory Chang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 5.  Applications of Machine Learning in Bone and Mineral Research.

Authors:  Sung Hye Kong; Chan Soo Shin
Journal:  Endocrinol Metab (Seoul)       Date:  2021-10-21

6.  What Is the Accuracy of Three Different Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Clinical Outcomes After Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Vikas Kumar; Christopher Roche; Steven Overman; Ryan Simovitch; Pierre-Henri Flurin; Thomas Wright; Joseph Zuckerman; Howard Routman; Ankur Teredesai
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 7.  Machine Learning in Orthopedics: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Federico Cabitza; Angela Locoro; Giuseppe Banfi
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2018-06-27

Review 8.  Machine Learning Applications in Endocrinology and Metabolism Research: An Overview.

Authors:  Namki Hong; Heajeong Park; Yumie Rhee
Journal:  Endocrinol Metab (Seoul)       Date:  2020-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.