ArticleEndocrinology, diabetes & metabolism2025
Diagnosis Osteoporosis Risk: Using Machine Learning Algorithms Among Fasa Adults Cohort Study (FACS).
Article in Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Rheumatology: From Algorithms to Clinical Impact in Osteoporosis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning for osteoporosis detection in patients with osteopenia: model development and validation using routine clinical data from an Asian cohort.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Evaluating community resilience through social media during China's first post-COVID-19 reopening: insights from machine learning.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Identification and validation of ubiquitination-associated genes of senile osteoporosis based on bioinformatics analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Iran, the assessment of osteoporosis through tools like dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry poses significant challenges due to their high costs and limited availability, particularly in small cities and rural areas. Our objective was to employ a variety of machine learning (ML) techniques to evaluate the accuracy and precision of each method, with the aim of identifying the most accurate pattern for diagnosing the osteoporosis risks.
methodsWe analysed the data related to osteoporosis risk factors obtained from the Fasa Adults Cohort Study in eight ML methods, including logistic regression (LR), baseline LR, decision tree classifiers (DT), support vector classifiers (SVC), random forest classifiers (RF), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), K nearest neighbour classifiers (KNN) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). For each algorithm, we calculated accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score and area under the curve (AUC) and compared them.
resultsThe XGB model with an AUC of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.82) and an accuracy of 0.79 (0.75-0.83) demonstrated the best performance, while AUC and accuracy values of RF were achieved (0.78 and 0.77), LR (0.78 and 0.77), LDA (0.78 and 0.76), DT (0.76 and 0.79), SVC (0.71 and 0.64), KNN (0.63 and 0.59) and baseline LR (0.72 and 0.82), respectively.
conclusionThe XGB model had the best performance in assessing the risk of osteoporosis in the Iranian population. Given the disadvantages and challenges associated with traditional osteoporosis diagnostic tools, the implementation of ML algorithms for the early identification of individuals with osteoporosis can lead to a significant reduction in morbidity and mortality related to this condition. This advancement not only alleviates the substantial financial burden placed on the healthcare systems of various countries due to the treatment of complications arising from osteoporosis but also encourages health policies to shift toward more preventive approaches for managing this disease.
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.