Literature DB >> 32667760

Can Machine-learning Algorithms Predict Early Revision TKA in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry?

Anders El-Galaly1,2, Clare Grazal3, Andreas Kappel1,2, Poul Torben Nielsen1,2, Steen Lund Jensen1,2, Jonathan A Forsberg4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Revision TKA is a serious adverse event with substantial consequences for the patient. As the demand for TKA rises, reducing the risk of revision TKA is becoming increasingly important. Predictive tools based on machine-learning algorithms could reform clinical practice. Few attempts have been made to combine machine-learning algorithms with data from nationwide arthroplasty registries and, to the authors' knowledge, none have tried to predict the likelihood of early revision TKA. QUESTION/PURPOSES: We used the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry to build models to predict the likelihood of revision TKA within 2 years of primary TKA and asked: (1) Which preoperative factors were the most important features behind these models' predictions of revision? (2) Can a clinically meaningful model be built on the preoperative factors included in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry?
METHODS: The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry collects patients' characteristics and surgical information from all arthroplasties conducted in Denmark and thus provides a large nationwide cohort of patients undergoing TKA. As training dataset, we retrieved all preoperative variables of 25,104 primary TKAs from 2012 to 2015. The same variables were retrieved from 6170 TKAs conducted in 2016, which were used as a hold-out year for temporal external validation. If a patient received bilateral TKA, only the first knee to receive surgery was included. All patients were followed for 2 years, with removal, exchange, or addition of an implant defined as TKA revision. We created four different predictive models to find the best performing model, including a regression-based model using logistic regression with least shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), two classification tree models (random forest and gradient boosting model) and a supervised neural network. For comparison, we created a noninformative model predicting that all observations were unrevised. The four machine learning models were trained using 10-fold cross-validation on the training dataset after adjusting for the low percentage of revisions by over-sampling revised observations and undersampling unrevised observations. In the validation dataset, the models' performance was evaluated and compared by density plot, calibration plot, accuracy, Brier score, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC). The density plot depicts the distribution of probabilities and the calibration plot graphically depicts whether the predicted probability resembled the observed probability. The accuracy indicates how often the models' predictions were correct and the Brier score is the mean distance from the predicted probability to the observed outcome. The ROC curve is a graphical output of the models' sensitivity and specificity from which the AUC is calculated. The AUC can be interpreted as the likelihood that a model correctly classified an observation and thus, a priori, an AUC of 0.7 was chosen as threshold for a clinically meaningful model.
RESULTS: Based the model training, age, postfracture osteoarthritis and weight were deemed as important preoperative factors within the machine learning models. During validation, the models' performance was not different from the noninformative models, and with AUCs ranging from 0.57 to 0.60, no models reached the predetermined AUC threshold for a clinical useful discriminative capacity.
CONCLUSION: Although several well-known presurgical risk factors for revision were coupled with four different machine learning methods, we could not develop a clinically useful model capable of predicting early TKA revisions in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry based on preoperative data. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The inability to predict early TKA revision highlights that predicting revision based on preoperative information alone is difficult. Future models might benefit from including medical comorbidities and an anonymous surgeon identifier variable or may attempt to build a postoperative predictive model including intra- and postoperative factors as these may have a stronger association with early TKA revisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32667760      PMCID: PMC7431253          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001343

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.755


  35 in total

Review 1.  A readers' guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis.

Authors:  Joachim E Fischer; Lucas M Bachmann; Roman Jaeschke
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2003-05-07       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.822

3.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.

Authors:  J N Insall; L D Dorr; R D Scott; W N Scott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Current Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Ronald E Delanois; Jaydev B Mistry; Chukwuweike U Gwam; Nequesha S Mohamed; Ujval S Choksi; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 5.  Arthroplasty implant registries over the past five decades: Development, current, and future impact.

Authors:  Henrik Malchau; Göran Garellick; Daniel Berry; William H Harris; Otto Robertson; Johan Kärrlholm; David Lewallen; Charles R Bragdon; Lars Lidgren; Peter Herberts
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  What Is the Association Between Hospital Volume and Complications After Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Large-database Study.

Authors:  Benjamin F Ricciardi; Andrew Y Liu; Bowen Qiu; Thomas G Myers; Caroline P Thirukumaran
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent.

Authors:  Jerome Friedman; Trevor Hastie; Rob Tibshirani
Journal:  J Stat Softw       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 6.440

Review 8.  A guide to deep learning in healthcare.

Authors:  Andre Esteva; Alexandre Robicquet; Bharath Ramsundar; Volodymyr Kuleshov; Mark DePristo; Katherine Chou; Claire Cui; Greg Corrado; Sebastian Thrun; Jeff Dean
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 53.440

9.  Bayesian alternatives for common null-hypothesis significance tests in psychiatry: a non-technical guide using JASP.

Authors:  Daniel S Quintana; Donald R Williams
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 3.630

Review 10.  The Danish health care system and epidemiological research: from health care contacts to database records.

Authors:  Morten Schmidt; Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt; Kasper Adelborg; Jens Sundbøll; Kristina Laugesen; Vera Ehrenstein; Henrik Toft Sørensen
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 4.790

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Moving beyond radiographic alignment: applying the Wald Principles in the adoption of robotic total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jess H Lonner; Graham S Goh
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Artificial intelligence in orthopedic surgery: evolution, current state and future directions.

Authors:  Andrew P Kurmis; Jamie R Ianunzio
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2022-03-02

3.  Cross-Tissue Analysis Using Machine Learning to Identify Novel Biomarkers for Knee Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Yudong Zhao; Yu Xia; Gaoyan Kuang; Jihui Cao; Fu Shen; Mingshuang Zhu
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 2.809

4.  Predicting Subjective Recovery from Lower Limb Surgery Using Consumer Wearables.

Authors:  Marta Karas; Nikki Marinsek; Jörg Goldhahn; Luca Foschini; Ernesto Ramirez; Ieuan Clay
Journal:  Digit Biomark       Date:  2020-11-26

5.  Development of a multivariable prediction model for early revision of total knee arthroplasty - The effect of including patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  J D Andersen; S Hangaard; A A Ø Buus; M Laursen; O K Hejlesen; A El-Galaly
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-03-11

Review 6.  Artificial intelligence in diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis and prediction of arthroplasty outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Lok Sze Lee; Ping Keung Chan; Chunyi Wen; Wing Chiu Fung; Amy Cheung; Vincent Wai Kwan Chan; Man Hong Cheung; Henry Fu; Chun Hoi Yan; Kwong Yuen Chiu
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2022-03-05

Review 7.  Machine learning in knee arthroplasty: specific data are key-a systematic review.

Authors:  Florian Hinterwimmer; Igor Lazic; Christian Suren; Michael T Hirschmann; Florian Pohlig; Daniel Rueckert; Rainer Burgkart; Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 4.114

Review 8.  Artificial intelligence in knee arthroplasty: current concept of the available clinical applications.

Authors:  Cécile Batailler; Jobe Shatrov; Elliot Sappey-Marinier; Elvire Servien; Sébastien Parratte; Sébastien Lustig
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2022-05-02

Review 9.  The current role of the virtual elements of artificial intelligence in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  E Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2022-07-05

10.  Disentangling treatment pathways for knee osteoarthritis: a study protocol for the TREATright study including a prospective cohort study, a qualitative study and a cost-effectiveness study.

Authors:  Simon Majormoen Bruhn; Lina Holm Ingelsrud; Thomas Bandholm; Søren Thorgaard Skou; Henrik M Schroder; Susanne Reventlow; Anne Møller; Jakob Kjellberg; Thomas Kallemose; Anders Troelsen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.