Artificial Intelligence Applied to Osteoporosis: A Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Fragility Fractures From MRI Data

被引:73
作者
Ferizi, Uran [1 ]
Besser, Harrison [1 ]
Hysi, Pirro [2 ]
Jacobs, Joseph [3 ]
Rajapakse, Chamith S. [4 ]
Chen, Cheng [5 ]
Saha, Punam K. [5 ]
Honig, Stephen [1 ]
Chang, Gregory [1 ]
机构
[1] NYU, Sch Med, New York, NY USA
[2] Kings Coll London, Dept Twin Res & Genet Epidemiol, London, England
[3] UCL, Dept Comp Sci, London, England
[4] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Univ Iowa, Coll Med, Iowa City, IA USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
BONE; CLASSIFICATION; RISK;
D O I
10.1002/jmri.26280
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background A current challenge in osteoporosis is identifying patients at risk of bone fracture. Purpose To identify the machine learning classifiers that predict best osteoporotic bone fractures and, from the data, to highlight the imaging features and the anatomical regions that contribute most to prediction performance. Study Type Prospective (cross-sectional) case-control study. Population Thirty-two women with prior fragility bone fractures, of mean age = 61.6 and body mass index (BMI) = 22.7 kg/m(2), and 60 women without fractures, of mean age = 62.3 and BMI = 21.4 kg/m(2). Field Strength/ Sequence: 3D FLASH at 3T. Assessment Quantitative MRI outcomes by software algorithms. Mechanical and topological microstructural parameters of the trabecular bone were calculated for five femoral regions, and added to the vector of features together with bone mineral density measurement, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) score, and personal characteristics such as age, weight, and height. We fitted 15 classifiers using 200 randomized cross-validation datasets. Statistical Tests: Data: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality. Model Performance: sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, F1-test, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Two-sided t-test, with P < 0.05 for statistical significance. Results The top three performing classifiers are RUS-boosted trees (in particular, performing best with head data, F1 = 0.64 +/- 0.03), the logistic regression and the linear discriminant (both best with trochanteric datasets, F1 = 0.65 +/- 0.03 and F1 = 0.67 +/- 0.03, respectively). A permutation of these classifiers comprised the best three performers for four out of five anatomical datasets. After averaging across all the anatomical datasets, the score for the best performer, the boosted trees, was F1 = 0.63 +/- 0.03 for All-features dataset, F1 = 0.52 +/- 0.05 for the no-MRI dataset, and F1 = 0.48 +/- 0.06 for the no-FRAX dataset. Data Conclusion: Of many classifiers, the RUS-boosted trees, the logistic regression, and the linear discriminant are best for predicting osteoporotic fracture. Both MRI and FRAX independently add value in identifying osteoporotic fractures. The femoral head, greater trochanter, and inter-trochanter anatomical regions within the proximal femur yielded better F1-scores for the best three classifiers.
引用
收藏
页码:1029 / 1038
页数:10
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Cost-effectiveness of Virtual Bone Strength Testing in Osteoporosis Screening Programs for Postmenopausal Women in the United States [J].
Agten, Christoph A. ;
Ramme, Austin J. ;
Kang, Stella ;
Honig, Stephen ;
Chang, Gregory .
RADIOLOGY, 2017, 285 (02) :506-517
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2003, Ijcai
[3]   DXA in vivo BMD methodology:: An erroneous and misleading research and clinical gauge of bone mineral status, bone fragility, and bone remodelling [J].
Bolotin, H. H. .
BONE, 2007, 41 (01) :138-154
[4]  
Demsar J, 2006, J MACH LEARN RES, V7, P1
[5]   Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images [J].
Fehr, Duc ;
Veeraraghavan, Harini ;
Wibmer, Andreas ;
Gondo, Tatsuo ;
Matsumoto, Kazuhiro ;
Vargas, Herbert Alberto ;
Sala, Evis ;
Hricak, Hedvig ;
Deasy, Joseph O. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2015, 112 (46) :E6265-E6273
[6]   Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: A discussion and proposal for an alternative approach [J].
Halligan, Steve ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Mallett, Susan .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2015, 25 (04) :932-939
[7]  
Hastie T., 2001, Springer series in statistics, V1, DOI [DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7, 10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7]
[8]  
Jolliffe I.T., 1986, PRINCIPAL COMPONENT, P92, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4757-1904-8_6
[9]   ASSESSMENT OF FRACTURE RISK AND ITS APPLICATION TO SCREENING FOR POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS - SYNOPSIS OF A WHO REPORT [J].
KANIS, JA ;
ALEXEEVA, L ;
BONJOUR, JP ;
BURKHARDT, P ;
CHRISTIANSEN, C ;
COOPER, C ;
DELMAS, P ;
JOHNELL, O ;
JOHNSTON, C ;
KANIS, JA ;
KHALTAEV, N ;
LIPS, P ;
MAZZUOLI, G ;
MELTON, LJ ;
MEUNIER, P ;
SEEMAN, E ;
STEPAN, J ;
TOSTESON, A .
OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 1994, 4 (06) :368-381
[10]   Clinical fracture risk evaluated by hierarchical agglomerative clustering [J].
Kruse, C. ;
Eiken, P. ;
Vestergaard, P. .
OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 28 (03) :819-832