ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2025
Predictive validity of consensus-based MRI definition of osteoarthritis plus radiographic osteoarthritis for the progression of knee osteoarthritis: A longitudinal cohort study.
Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive Value of Machine Learning in Knee Osteoarthritis Progression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Our previous study showed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (MRI-OA), based on a Delphi approach, in combination with radiographic OA (ROA) had a strong predictive validity for the progression of knee OA. This study aimed to compare whether the combination using traditional prediction models was superior to the Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) models. Methods: Data were from the Tasmanian Older Adult Cohort. A radiograph and 1.5T MRI of the right knee was performed. Tibial cartilage volume was measured at baseline, 2.6 and 10.7 years. Knee pain and function were assessed at baseline, 2.6, 5.1, and 10.7 years. Right-sided total knee replacement (TKR) were assessed over 13.5 years. The area under the curve (AUC) was applied to compare the predictive validity of logistic regression with the LightGBM algorithm. For significant imbalanced outcomes, the area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR) was used. Results: 574 participants (mean 62 years, 49 % female) were included. Overall, the LightGBM showed a clinically acceptable predictive performance for all outcomes but TKR. For knee pain and function, LightGBM showed better predictive performance than logistic regression model (AUC: 0.731-0.912 vs 0.627-0.755). Similar results were found for tibial cartilage loss over 2.6 (AUC: 0.845 vs 0.701, p < 0.001) and 10.7 years (AUC: 0.845 vs 0.753, p = 0.016). For TKR, which exhibited significant class imbalance, both algorithms performed poorly (AUC-PR: 0.647 vs 0.610). Conclusion: Compared to logistic regression combining MRI-OA, ROA, and common covariates, LightGBM offers valuable insights that can inform early risk identification and targeted prevention strategies.
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.