| Literature DB >> 34588829 |
Tong-Fu Wang1, De-Sheng Chen1, Jia-Wang Zhu1, Bo Zhu1, Zeng-Liang Wang1, Jian-Gang Cao1, Cai-Hong Feng1, Jun-Wei Zhao1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aim to present unsupervised machine learning-based analysis of clinical features, bone mineral density (BMD) features, and medical care costs of Rotator cuff tears (RCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients with RCT were reviewed, the clinical features, BMD features, and medical care costs were collected and analyzed by descriptive statistics. Furtherly, unsupervised machine learning (UML) algorithm was used for dimensionality reduction and cluster analysis of the RCT data.Entities:
Keywords: bone mineral density; clinical features; medical care costs; rotator cuff tears; unsupervised machine learning
Year: 2021 PMID: 34588829 PMCID: PMC8472212 DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S330555
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Risk Manag Healthc Policy ISSN: 1179-1594
5 Clinical Features of Patients
| Clinical Features | Value |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 55.47 ± 8.6 |
| Duration of symptoms (months) | 9.86 ± 22.82 |
| Medial row anchors | 2.13 ± 0.81 |
| Lateral row anchors | 1.51 ± 0.54 |
| Length of hospitalization (days) | 7.13 ± 1.69 |
Figure 111 clinical features and 1 BMD feature of patients.
Figure 2The BMD value and Z-score of patients.
Figure 3The T-score of patients.
Figure 4The distribution of medical care costs. The consumables costs contributed the highest proportion (52.69%).
Figure 5The input dataset was divided into four subgroups. (A) Dimensionality reduction of the input dataset into a two-dimensional data space using principal component analysis. (B) The k-means clustering algorithm was used to divide the dataset into 4 subgroups, with red dots representing subgroup I (n=13), blue dots representing subgroup II (n=8), green dots representing subgroup III (n=24), and yellow dots representing subgroup IV (n=8).
Figure 6There were significant differences among four subgroups regarding trauma exposure, FT-SSP, ISP, SCP.
Figure 7There were significant differences among four subgroups in BMD distribution.
Comparisons Among Subgroups Regarding Medial Row Anchors, Lateral Row Anchors, Total Medical Care Costs, Consumables Costs
| Group | Medial Row Anchors | Lateral Row Anchors | Total Medical Care Costs (Yuan) | Consumables Costs (Yuan) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subgroup I | 1.92 ±0.28 | 1.08±0.28 | 5.16±1.51 | 3.22±0.10 |
| Subgroup II | 3.25 ±1.04 | 2.13±0.35 | 7.63±0.52 | 5.53 ±0.39 |
| Subgroup III | 2.25 ±0.44 | 1.71±0.46 | 6.09±0.24 | 4.07 ±0.22 |
| Subgroup IV | 1.00 ±0.00 | 1.00±0.00 | 4.53±0.14 | 2.57±0.17 |
| F value | 26.73 | 20.52 | 212.02 | 273.64 |
| P value | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Figure 8Summary of clinical features, BMD features, and medical care costs among four subgroups.