ArticlePloS one2026
Identification of key predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis from routine clinical indicators using explainable machine learning.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) shows promise in using clinical data to predict chronic diseases. However, its application in PMOP risk assessment using readily available clinical and biochemical parameters is underexplored.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate an interpretable ML-based model for assessing PMOP using clinical features and laboratory biomarkers, and to identify factors associated with PMOP using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP).
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study included 1,717 postmenopausal women from two hospitals in Northwest China. PMOP was diagnosed with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA T-score ≤-2.5). Data collected included demographics, clinical details, and various laboratory parameters, such as bone metabolism markers, 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25-(OH)D], electrolytes, and routine blood counts. Ten ML algorithms were employed for feature selection and model construction on a dataset split into training (n = 1201) and testing (n = 516) sets. Performance was evaluated using the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and calibration.
resultsThe Extra Trees (ET) model achieved the best test-set performance, with an AUC of 0.717 (95% CI: 0.682-0.752). SHAP analysis revealed that age was the most significant associated factor (SHAP value: 0.0648), followed by body mass index (BMI) (0.0243) and chloride ion levels (0.0209). Other top predictors included the use of antihypertensive drugs and years since menopause.
conclusionThe ET ML algorithm showed the best performance in assessing PMOP, with age, BMI, and circulating chloride levels as significant associated factors.
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.