Evidence-based machine learning algorithm to predict failure following cartilage procedures in the knee

{"title":"Evidence-based machine learning algorithm to predict failure following cartilage procedures in the knee","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjp.2023.100161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Clinical decision-making is highly based on expert opinion. Machine learning is increasingly used to develop patient-specific risk prediction analysis to improve patient selection prior to surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To develop machine learning algorithms to predict failure of surgical procedures that address cartilage defects of the knee and detect variables associated with failure.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>An institutional database was queried for cartilage procedures performed between 2000 and 2018. Failure was defined as revision cartilage surgery or knee arthroplasty. One hundred and one preoperative and intraoperative features were evaluated as potential predictors. Four machine learning algorithms were trained and internally validated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One thousand and ninety-one patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included and underwent chondroplasty (<em>n</em> = 560; 51%), osteochondral allograft transplantation (<em>n</em> = 306; 28%), microfracture (<em>n</em> = 150; 14%), autologous chondrocyte implantation (<em>n</em> = 39; 4%), or osteochondral autograft transplantation (<em>n</em> = 36; 3%). The Random Forest algorithm was the best-performing algorithm, with an area under the curve of 0.765 and a Brier score of 0.135. The most important features for predicting failure were symptom duration, age, body mass index, lesion grade, and total lesion area. Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations analysis provided patient-specific comparisons for the risk of failure of an individual patient being assigned various types of cartilage procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Machine learning algorithms were accurate in predicting the risk of failure following cartilage procedures of the knee, with the most important features in descending order being symptom duration, age, body mass index, lesion grade, and total lesion area. Machine learning algorithms may be used to compare the risk of failure of specific patient-procedure combinations in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100760,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cartilage & Joint Preservation","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cartilage & Joint Preservation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667254523000677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Clinical decision-making is highly based on expert opinion. Machine learning is increasingly used to develop patient-specific risk prediction analysis to improve patient selection prior to surgery.

Objectives

To develop machine learning algorithms to predict failure of surgical procedures that address cartilage defects of the knee and detect variables associated with failure.

Methods

An institutional database was queried for cartilage procedures performed between 2000 and 2018. Failure was defined as revision cartilage surgery or knee arthroplasty. One hundred and one preoperative and intraoperative features were evaluated as potential predictors. Four machine learning algorithms were trained and internally validated.

Results

One thousand and ninety-one patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included and underwent chondroplasty (n = 560; 51%), osteochondral allograft transplantation (n = 306; 28%), microfracture (n = 150; 14%), autologous chondrocyte implantation (n = 39; 4%), or osteochondral autograft transplantation (n = 36; 3%). The Random Forest algorithm was the best-performing algorithm, with an area under the curve of 0.765 and a Brier score of 0.135. The most important features for predicting failure were symptom duration, age, body mass index, lesion grade, and total lesion area. Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations analysis provided patient-specific comparisons for the risk of failure of an individual patient being assigned various types of cartilage procedures.

Conclusions

Machine learning algorithms were accurate in predicting the risk of failure following cartilage procedures of the knee, with the most important features in descending order being symptom duration, age, body mass index, lesion grade, and total lesion area. Machine learning algorithms may be used to compare the risk of failure of specific patient-procedure combinations in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee.
预测膝关节软骨手术失败的循证机器学习算法
导言临床决策在很大程度上基于专家意见。机器学习正越来越多地用于开发患者特异性风险预测分析,以改善手术前的患者选择。目标开发机器学习算法,以预测处理膝关节软骨缺损的手术失败,并检测与失败相关的变量。方法查询机构数据库,了解 2000 年至 2018 年期间实施的软骨手术。失败定义为软骨翻修手术或膝关节置换术。作为潜在的预测因素,对 1001 个术前和术中特征进行了评估。结果 纳入了至少随访 2 年的 191 名患者,他们接受了软骨成形术(n = 560;51%)、骨软骨异体移植术(n = 306;28%)、微骨折术(n = 150;14%)、自体软骨细胞植入术(n = 39;4%)或骨软骨自体移植术(n = 36;3%)。随机森林算法是表现最好的算法,曲线下面积为 0.765,Brier 评分为 0.135。预测失败的最重要特征是症状持续时间、年龄、体重指数、病变等级和病变总面积。结论机器学习算法能准确预测膝关节软骨手术后的失败风险,最重要的特征依次为症状持续时间、年龄、体重指数、病变等级和总病变面积。在治疗膝关节软骨缺损的过程中,机器学习算法可用于比较特定患者-手术组合的失败风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信