No abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in general, and Machine Learning (ML)-based applications in particular, have the potential to change the scope of healthcare, including orthopaedic surgery. The greatest benefit of ML is in its ability to learn from real-world clinical use and experience, and thereby its capability to improve its own performance. Many successful applications are known in orthopaedics, but have yet to be adopted and evaluated for accuracy and efficacy in patients’ care and doctors’ workflows. The recent hype around AI triggered hope for development of better risk stratification tools to personalize orthopaedics in all subsequent steps of care, from diagnosis to treatment. Computer vision applications for fracture recognition show promising results to support decision-making, overcome bias, process high-volume workloads without fatigue, and hold the promise of even outperforming doctors in certain tasks. In the near future, AI-derived applications are very likely to assist orthopaedic surgeons rather than replace us. ‘If the computer takes over the simple stuff, doctors will have more time again to practice the art of medicine’.76 Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:593-603. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190092

Introduction Postoperative delirium in geriatric hip fracture patients adversely affects clinical and functional outcomes and increases costs. A preoperative prediction tool to identify high-risk patients may facilitate optimal use of preventive interventions. The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical prediction model using machine learning algorithms for preoperative prediction of postoperative delirium in geriatric hip fracture patients. Materials & Methods Geriatric patients undergoing operative hip fracture fixation were queried in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (ACS NSQIP) from 2016 through 2019. A total of 28 207 patients were included, of which 8030 (28.5%) developed a postoperative delirium. First, the dataset was randomly split 80:20 into a training and testing subset. Then, a random forest (RF) algorithm was used to identify the variables predictive for a postoperative delirium. The machine learning-model was developed on the training set and the performance was assessed in the testing set. Performance was assessed by discrimination (c-statistic), calibration (slope and intercept), overall performance (Brier-score), and decision curve analysis. Results The included variables identified using RF algorithms were (1) age, (2) ASA class, (3) functional status, (4) preoperative dementia, (5) preoperative delirium, and (6) preoperative need for mobility-aid. The clinical prediction model reached good discrimination (c-statistic = .79), almost perfect calibration (intercept = −.01, slope = 1.02), and excellent overall model performance (Brier score = .15). The clinical prediction model was deployed as an open-access web-application: https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/hipfxdelirium/ . Discussion & Conclusions We developed a clinical prediction model that shows promise in estimating the risk of postoperative delirium in geriatric hip fracture patients. The clinical prediction model can play a beneficial role in decision-making for preventative measures for patients at risk of developing a delirium. If found to be externally valid, clinicians might use the available web-based application to help incorporate the model into clinical practice to aid decision-making and optimize preoperative prevention efforts.

No abstract

Machine learning (ML) studies are becoming increasingly popular in orthopedics but lack a critically appraisal of their adherence to peer‐reviewed guidelines. The objective of this review was to (1) evaluate quality and transparent reporting of ML prediction models in orthopedic surgery based on the transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD), and (2) assess risk of bias with the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. A systematic review was performed to identify all ML prediction studies published in orthopedic surgery through June 18th, 2020. After screening 7138 studies, 59 studies met the study criteria and were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by discussion with at least two additional reviewers present. Across all studies, the overall median completeness for the TRIPOD checklist was 53% (interquartile range 47%–60%). The overall risk of bias was low in 44% (n = 26), high in 41% (n = 24), and unclear in 15% (n = 9). High overall risk of bias was driven by incomplete reporting of performance measures, inadequate handling of missing data, and use of small datasets with inadequate outcome numbers. Although the number of ML studies in orthopedic surgery is increasing rapidly, over 40% of the existing models are at high risk of bias. Furthermore, over half incompletely reported their methods and/or performance measures. Until these issues are adequately addressed to give patients and providers trust in ML models, a considerable gap remains between the development of ML prediction models and their implementation in orthopedic practice.

Background and purpose — External validation of machine learning (ML) prediction models is an essential step before clinical application. We assessed the proportion, performance, and transparent reporting of externally validated ML prediction models in orthopedic surgery, using the Transparent Reporting for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. Material and methods — We performed a systematic search using synonyms for every orthopedic specialty, ML, and external validation. The proportion was determined by using 59 ML prediction models with only internal validation in orthopedic surgical outcome published up until June 18, 2020, previously identified by our group. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination, calibration, and decision-curve analysis. The TRIPOD guidelines assessed transparent reporting. Results — We included 18 studies externally validating 10 different ML prediction models of the 59 available ML models after screening 4,682 studies. All external validations identified in this review retained good discrimination. Other key performance measures were provided in only 3 studies, rendering overall performance evaluation difficult. The overall median TRIPOD completeness was 61% (IQR 43–89), with 6 items being reported in less than 4/18 of the studies. Interpretation — Most current predictive ML models are not externally validated. The 18 available external validation studies were characterized by incomplete reporting of performance measures, limiting a transparent examination of model performance. Further prospective studies are needed to validate or refute the myriad of predictive ML models in orthopedics while adhering to existing guidelines. This ensures clinicians can take full advantage of validated and clinically implementable ML decision tools.

Background:Statistical models using machine learning (ML) have the potential for more accurate estimates of the probability of binary events than logistic regression. The present study used existing data sets from large musculoskeletal trauma trials to address the following study questions: (1) Do ML models produce better probability estimates than logistic regression models? (2) Are ML models influenced by different variables than logistic regression models?Methods:We created ML and logistic regression models that estimated the probability of a specific fracture (posterior malleolar involvement in distal spiral tibial shaft and ankle fractures, scaphoid fracture, and distal radial fracture) or adverse event (subsequent surgery [after distal biceps repair or tibial shaft fracture], surgical site infection, and postoperative delirium) using 9 data sets from published musculoskeletal trauma studies. Each data set was split into training (80%) and test (20%) subsets. Fivefold cross-validation of the training set was used to develop the ML models. The best-performing model was then assessed in the independent testing data. Performance was assessed by (1) discrimination (c-statistic), (2) calibration (slope and intercept), and (3) overall performance (Brier score).Results:The mean c-statistic was 0.01 higher for the logistic regression models compared with the best ML models for each data set (range, −0.01 to 0.06). There were fewer variables strongly associated with variation in the ML models, and many were dissimilar from those in the logistic regression models.Conclusions:The observation that ML models produce probability estimates comparable with logistic regression models for binary events in musculoskeletal trauma suggests that their benefit may be limited in this context.

The objective was to systematically review the literature on risk factors and prevention programs for musculoskeletal injuries among tennis players. PubmedMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, SportDiscus were searched up to February 2017. Experts in clinical and epidemiological medicine were contacted to obtain additional studies. For risk factors, prospective cohort studies (n > 20) with a statistical analysis for injured and non-injured players were included and studies with a RCT design for prevention programs. Downs&Black checklist was assessed for risk of bias for risk factors. From a total of 4067 articles, five articles met our inclusion criteria for risk factors. No studies on effectiveness of prevention programs were identified. Quality of studies included varied from fair to excellent. Best evidence synthesis revealed moderate evidence for previous injury regardless of body location in general and fewer years of tennis experience for the occurrence of upper extremity injuries. Moderate evidence was found for lower back injuries, a previous back injury, playing >6hours/week and low lateral flexion of the neck for risk factors. Limited evidence was found for male gender as a risk factor. The risk factors identified can assist clinicians in developing prevention-strategies. Further studies should focus on risk factor evaluation in recreational adult tennis players.