ArticleScientific reports2024
Preventive machine learning models incorporating health checkup data and hair mineral analysis for low bone mass identification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An explainable predictive machine learning model of osteopenia for perimenopausal women based on clinical data: a retrospective single-center study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Osteoporosis Diagnosis, Risk Prediction and Therapy: Current Advances, Clinical Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) models have been increasingly employed to predict osteoporosis. However, the incorporation of hair minerals into ML models remains unexplored. This study aimed to develop ML models for predicting low bone mass (LBM) using health checkup data and hair mineral analysis. A total of 1206 postmenopausal women and 820 men aged 50 years or older at a health promotion center were included in this study. LBM was defined as a T-score below - 1 at the lumbar, femur neck, or total hip area. The proportion of individuals with LBM was 59.4% (n = 1205). The features used in the models comprised 50 health checkup items and 22 hair minerals. The ML algorithms employed were Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost). The subjects were divided into training and test datasets with an 80:20 ratio. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and an F1 score were evaluated to measure the performances of the models. Through 50 repetitions, the mean (standard deviation) AUROC for LBM was 0.744 (± 0.021) for XGB, the highest among the models, followed by 0.737 (± 0.023) for AdaBoost, and 0.733 (± 0.023) for GB, and 0.732 (± 0.021) for RF. The XGB model had an accuracy of 68.7%, sensitivity of 80.7%, specificity of 51.1%, PPV of 70.9%, NPV of 64.3%, and an F1 score of 0.754. However, these performance metrics did not demonstrate notable differences among the models. The XGB model identified sulfur, sodium, mercury, copper, magnesium, arsenic, and phosphate as crucial hair mineral features. The study findings emphasize the significance of employing ML algorithms for predicting LBM. Integrating health checkup data and hair mineral analysis into these models may provide valuable insights into identifying individuals at risk of LBM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.