ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
An interpretable machine learning model integrating ultrasound and clinical variables for predicting osteoporosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 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
Abstract
objectivesRheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly increases the risk of osteoporosis (OP) and fractures, yet dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is underused in routine care. This study aims to develop and explain a machine learning model to identify individuals with OP risk among RA patients.
methodsIn this single-center retrospective study, 299 RA patients were enrolled and split 7:3 into training and test sets. Candidate features included clinical variables, laboratory indices, and musculoskeletal ultrasound semi-quantitative scores. After performing correlation analysis and variance inflation factor (VIF) screening, recursive feature elimination combined with random forest (RF) and five-fold cross-validation was used for feature selection. Nine machine learning models were constructed and compared in terms of performance. The optimal model was further validated through calibration curves, precision-recall (P-R) curves, and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis.
resultsThe extra trees (ET) model demonstrated the most stable performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.914 (95% CI 0.854-0.961), specificity of 0.951, sensitivity of 0.586, accuracy of 0.833, and a Brier score of 0.120 in the test set. Calibration and P-R curve analyses indicated good model performance. SHAP analysis revealed bone erosion (BE), age, and disease duration as key driving factors for RA-OP.
conclusionsAn interpretable machine learning model integrating clinical variables, laboratory indices, and semi-quantitative ultrasound scores may support risk stratification for DXA-defined osteoporosis in patients with RA. Given its high specificity but moderate sensitivity, the model should be regarded as an adjunctive tool for prioritizing DXA assessment and bone-health management rather than as a stand-alone screening method. Key Points • An explainable machine learning model integrating clinical variables and semi-quantitative ultrasound scores was developed for RA-specific OP risk stratification. • The final extra trees model demonstrated good discrimination and high specificity, but moderate sensitivity, supporting its use as an adjunctive rather than stand-alone screening tool. • Semi-quantitative ultrasound scores may provide complementary information beyond routine clinical indicators for prioritizing DXA assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42467347What 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.