ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2025
A machine-learning-based osteoporosis screening tool integrating the Shapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) method: model development and validation study.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
rationaleExisting osteoporosis screening tools are inaccurate and inconvenient, prompting the need for a better alternative. MAIN
resultA machine learning tool (Gradient Boosting) with key factors (weight, age, height) outperformed OST (AUC 0.828 vs 0.781, p < 0.0001) in validation. SIGNIFICANCE: The validated, clinically applicable tool improves osteoporosis screening accessibility and accuracy.
backgroundAs the first "line of defence" for osteoporosis detection, existing screening tools have low accuracy and are inconvenient to use. Therefore, this study aims to develop a machine-learning-based, clinically applicable, and interpretable osteoporosis screening tool.
methodsThis study included 9405 American participants aged 50 years and older (with the average age of the osteoporosis population in the training set and test set being 72 ± 9 years and 73 ± 8 years, respectively). The study selected 13 clinically accessible indicators as candidate predictive variables, divided the data into a training set and a test set at a ratio of 7:3, used the Lasso for feature selection, compared six statistical and machine learning models, evaluated model performance through metrics such as the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC), Sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, decision curve, calibration curve, and clinical impact curve, employed the SHAP (Shapley Additive exPlanations) method to enhance model interpretability, and conducted external validation based on an independent dataset from the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University.
results"Weight," "age," and "height" are the most critical predictive factors. Gradient Boosting Machine (GB) showed optimal results, with training and test set AUC (0.850, 0.841), sensitivity (0.757, 0.737), specificity (0.793, 0.779), and F1-score (0.336, 0.316), respectively. External validation (3500 subjects) showed that the GB-based screening tool had an AUC of 0.828, which was significantly higher than that of the traditional Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST, AUC = 0.781) via the DeLong test (z = 10.880, p < 0.0001).
conclusionA clinically applicable osteoporosis screening tool based on machine learning algorithms was developed and validated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41123741What 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.