Hip fracture risk assessment: artificial neural network outperforms conditional logistic regression in an age- and sex-matched case control study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Jinn Lin²  Maysam F Abbod³  Jiann-Shing Shieh⁴  Li-Wei Hung²  Wo-Jan Tseng¹ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu Branch, No.25, Ln. 442, Sec. 1, Jingguo Rd., East Dist., 300, Hsinchu, Taiwan;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, No.7, Zhongshan S. Rd., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei, Taiwan;School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, Kingston LaneUxbridge Middlesex UB8 3PH, West London, United Kingdom;Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yuan Ze University, No.135, Yuandong Rd., Zhongli, Taiwan

关键词: Calibration;    Discrimination;    Conditional logistic regression;    Artificial neural network;    Hip fracture;   

Others  :  1130368
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-207

 received in 2012-12-14, accepted in 2013-07-12,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Osteoporotic hip fractures with a significant morbidity and excess mortality among the elderly have imposed huge health and economic burdens on societies worldwide. In this age- and sex-matched case control study, we examined the risk factors of hip fractures and assessed the fracture risk by conditional logistic regression (CLR) and ensemble artificial neural network (ANN). The performances of these two classifiers were compared.

Methods

The study population consisted of 217 pairs (149 women and 68 men) of fractures and controls with an age older than 60 years. All the participants were interviewed with the same standardized questionnaire including questions on 66 risk factors in 12 categories. Univariate CLR analysis was initially conducted to examine the unadjusted odds ratio of all potential risk factors. The significant risk factors were then tested by multivariate analyses. For fracture risk assessment, the participants were randomly divided into modeling and testing datasets for 10-fold cross validation analyses. The predicting models built by CLR and ANN in modeling datasets were applied to testing datasets for generalization study. The performances, including discrimination and calibration, were compared with non-parametric Wilcoxon tests.

Results

In univariate CLR analyses, 16 variables achieved significant level, and six of them remained significant in multivariate analyses, including low T score, low BMI, low MMSE score, milk intake, walking difficulty, and significant fall at home. For discrimination, ANN outperformed CLR in both 16- and 6-variable analyses in modeling and testing datasets (p?

Conclusions

The risk factors of hip fracture are more personal than environmental. With adequate model construction, ANN may outperform CLR in both discrimination and calibration. ANN seems to have not been developed to its full potential and efforts should be made to improve its performance.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Tseng et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wehren L, Magaziner J: Hip fracture: risk factors and outcomes. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2003, 1:78-85.
• [2]Magaziner J, Lydick E, Hawkes W, Fox KM, Zimmerman SI, Epstein RS, Hebel JR: Excess mortality attributable to hip fracture in white women aged 70 years and older. Am J Public Health 1997, 87:1630-1636.
• [3]Taylor BC, Schreiner PJ, Stone KL, Fink HA, Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Bowman PJ, Ensrud KE: Long-term prediction of incident hip fracture risk in elderly white women: study of osteoporotic fractures. J Am Getri Soc 2004, 52:1479-1486.
• [4]Marks R: Hip fracture epidemiological trends, outcomes, and risk factors, 1970–2009. Int J Gen Med 2010, 3:1-17.
• [5]Robbins J, Aragaki AK, Kooperberg C, Watts N, Wactawski-Wende J, Jackson RD, LeBoff MS, Lewis CE, Chen Z, Stefanick ML, et al.: Factors Associated With 5-Year Risk of Hip Fracture in Postmenopausal Women. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc 2007, 298(20):2389-2398.
• [6]LAU EMC, SURIWONGPAISAL P, LEE JK, DE D, FESTIN MR, SAW SM, KHIR A, TORRALBA T, SHAM A, SAMBROOK P: Risk factors for hip fracture in asian men and women: the Asian osteoporosis study. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:572-580.
• [7]Basheer IA, Hajmeer M: Artificial neural networks: fundamentals, computing, design, and application. J Microbiol Meth 2000, 43:3-31.
• [8]Patel JL, Goyal RK: Applications of artificial neural networks in medical science. Curr Clin Pharmacol 2007, 2:217-226.
• [9]Eller-Vainicher C, Chiodini I, Santi I, Massarotti M, Pietrogrande L, Cairoli E, Beck-Peccoz P, Longhi M, Galmarini V, Gandolini G, Bevilacqua M, Grossi E: Recognition of morphometric vertebral fractures by artificial neural networks: analysis from GISMO Lombardia Database. PLoS One 2011, 6(11):e27277.
• [10]Lin CC, Ou YK, Chen SH, Liu YC, Lin J: Comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression models for predicting mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. Injury 2010, 41(8):869-873.
• [11]Winham SJ, Slater AJ, Motsinger-Reif AA: A comparison of internal validation techniques for multifactor dimensionality reduction. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11(1):394. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Lin CC, Bai YM, Chen JY, Hwang TJ, Chen TT, Chiu HW, Li YC: Easy and low-cost identification of metabolic syndrome in patients treated with second-generation antipsychotics. J Clin Psychiat 2010, 71(03):225-234.
• [13]Meiller MF: A scaled conjugate gradient algorithm for fast supervised learning. Neural Netw 1993, 6:525-533.
• [14]Matheny M, Ohnomachado L, Resnic F: Discrimination and calibration of mortality risk prediction models in interventional cardiology. J Biomed Inform 2005, 38(5):367-375.
• [15]Dreiseitl S, Ohno-Machado L: Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review. J Biomed Inform 2002, 35(5–6):352-359.
• [16]Parker MJ, Twemlow TR, Pryor GA: Environmental hazards and hip fractures. Age Ageing 1996, 25:322-325.
• [17]LAU EMC, HONG A, LAM V, WOO J: Milk supplementation of the diet of postmenopausal Chinese women on a low calcium intake retards bone loss. J Bone Miner Res 2001, 16:1704-1709.
• [18]Ting G, Tan S, Chan S, Karuthan C, Zaitun Y, Suriah A, Chee W: A follow-up study on the effects of a milk supplement on bone mineral density of menopausal Chinese women in Malaysia. J Nutr Health Aging 2007, 11:69-73.
• [19]Lofthus CM, Osnes EK, Meyer HE, Kristiansen IS, Nordsletten L, Falch JA: Young patients with hip fracture: a population-based study of bone mass and risk factors for osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int 2006, 17(11):1666-1672.
• [20]Kanis JA, Oden A, Johnell O, Johansson H, Laet C, Brown J, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Christiansen C, Cummings S, et al.: The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporosis Int 2007, 18(8):1033-1046.
• [21]Ayer T, Chhatwal J, Alagoz O, Kahn CE, Woods RW, Burnside ES: Comparison of logistic regression and artificial neural network models in breast cancer risk estimation. Radiographics 2010, 30:13-22.
• [22]Sargent DJ: Comparison of artificial neural networks with other statistical approaches. Cancer 2001, 91:1636-1642.
• [23]Cunningham P, Carney J, Jacob S: Stability problems with artifcial neural networks and the ensemble solution. Artif Intell Med 2000, 20:217-225.
• [24]Santos-Garcı́a G, Varela G, Novoa N, Jiménez MF: Prediction of postoperative morbidity after lung resection using an artificial neural network ensemble. Artif Intell Med 2004, 30(1):61-69.
• [25]Schwartzer G, Vach W, Schumacher M: On the misuses of artificial neural networks for pronostic and diagnostic classification in oncology. Stat Med 2000, 19:541-561.
• [26]Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B: Estimation of the Youden index and its associated cutoff point. Biom J 2005, 47:458-472.
• [27]Jimenez-valverde A, Lobo J: Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either–or presence–absence. Acta Oecol 2007, 31(3):361-369.
• [28]Sakai S, Kobayashi K, Akazawa K, Kanda T, Mandai N, Toyabe SI: Comparison of the levels of accuracy of an artificial neural network model and a logistic regression model for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. J Med Syst 2007, 31(5):357-364.
• [29]Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J: Statistics review 14: Logistic regression. Crit Care 2005, 9(1):112. BioMed Central Full Text