23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Artificial intelligence on the identification of risk groups for osteoporosis, a general review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The goal of this paper is to present a critical review on the main systems that use artificial intelligence to identify groups at risk for osteoporosis or fractures. The systems considered for this study were those that fulfilled the following requirements: range of coverage in diagnosis, low cost and capability to identify more significant somatic factors.

          Methods

          A bibliographic research was done in the databases, PubMed, IEEExplorer Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (LILACS), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct searching the terms “Neural Network”, “Osteoporosis Machine Learning” and “Osteoporosis Neural Network”. Studies with titles not directly related to the research topic and older data that reported repeated strategies were excluded. The search was carried out with the descriptors in German, Spanish, French, Italian, Mandarin, Portuguese and English; but only studies written in English were found to meet the established criteria. Articles covering the period 2000–2017 were selected; however, articles prior to this period with great relevance were included in this study.

          Discussion

          Based on the collected research, it was identified that there are several methods in the use of artificial intelligence to help the screening of risk groups of osteoporosis or fractures. However, such systems were limited to a specific ethnic group, gender or age. For future research, new challenges are presented.

          Conclusions

          It is necessary to develop research with the unification of different databases and grouping of the various attributes and clinical factors, in order to reach a greater comprehensiveness in the identification of risk groups of osteoporosis. For this purpose, the use of any predictive tool should be performed in different populations with greater participation of male patients and inclusion of a larger age range for the ones involved. The biggest challenge is to deal with all the data complexity generated by this unification, developing evidence-based standards for the evaluation of the most significant risk factors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk.

          John Kanis (2002)
          The diagnosis of osteoporosis centres on the assessment of bone mineral density (BMD). Osteoporosis is defined as a BMD 2.5 SD or more below the average value for premenopausal women (T score < -2.5 SD). Severe osteoporosis denotes osteoporosis in the presence of one or more fragility fractures. The same absolute value for BMD used in women can be used in men. The recommended site for diagnosis is the proximal femur with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Other sites and validated techniques, however, can be used for fracture prediction. Although hip fracture prediction with BMD alone is at least as good as blood pressure readings to predict stroke, the predictive value of BMD can be enhanced by use of other factors, such as biochemical indices of bone resorption and clinical risk factors. Clinical risk factors that contribute to fracture risk independently of BMD include age, previous fragility fracture, premature menopause, a family history of hip fracture, and the use of oral corticosteroids. In the absence of validated population screening strategies, a case finding strategy is recommended based on the finding of risk factors. Treatment should be considered in individuals subsequently shown to have a high fracture risk. Because of the many techniques available for fracture risk assessment, the 10-year probability of fracture is the desirable measurement to determine intervention thresholds. Many treatments can be provided cost-effectively to men and women if hip fracture probability over 10 years ranges from 2% to 10% dependent on age.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Medical expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic fractures in the United States in 1995: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation.

            Osteoporotic fractures are a significant public health problem, resulting in substantial morbidity and mortality. Previous estimates of the economic burden of osteoporosis, however, have not fully accounted for the costs associated with treatment of nonhip fractures, minority populations, or men. Accordingly, the 1995 total direct medical expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic fractures were estimated for all persons aged 45 years or older in the United States by age group, sex, race, type of fracture, and site of service (inpatient hospital, nursing home, and outpatient). Osteoporosis attribution probabilities were used to estimate the proportion of health service utilization and expenditures for fractures that resulted from osteoporosis. Health care expenditures attributable to osteoporotic fractures in 1995 were estimated at $13.8 billion, of which $10.3 billion (75.1%) was for the treatment of white women, $2.5 billion (18.4%) for white men, $0.7 billion (5.3%) for nonwhite women, and $0.2 billion (1.3%) for nonwhite men. Although the majority of U.S. health care expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic fractures were for white women, one-fourth of the total was borne by other population subgroups. By site-of-service, $8.6 billion (62.4%) was spent for inpatient care, $3.9 billion (28.2%) for nursing home care, and $1.3 billion (9.4%) for outpatient services. Importantly, fractures at skeletal sites other than the hip accounted for 36.9% of the total attributed health care expenditures nationally. The contribution of nonhip fractures to the substantial morbidity and expenditures associated with osteoporosis has been underestimated by previous researchers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Machine learning, medical diagnosis, and biomedical engineering research - commentary

              A large number of papers are appearing in the biomedical engineering literature that describe the use of machine learning techniques to develop classifiers for detection or diagnosis of disease. However, the usefulness of this approach in developing clinically validated diagnostic techniques so far has been limited and the methods are prone to overfitting and other problems which may not be immediately apparent to the investigators. This commentary is intended to help sensitize investigators as well as readers and reviewers of papers to some potential pitfalls in the development of classifiers, and suggests steps that researchers can take to help avoid these problems. Building classifiers should be viewed not simply as an add-on statistical analysis, but as part and parcel of the experimental process. Validation of classifiers for diagnostic applications should be considered as part of a much larger process of establishing the clinical validity of the diagnostic technique.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                agnaldo@ct.ufrn.br
                hertzw@gmail.com
                ricardo.valentim@ufrnet.br
                macedofirmino@gmail.com
                sandro@ct.ufrn.br
                Journal
                Biomed Eng Online
                Biomed Eng Online
                BioMedical Engineering OnLine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-925X
                29 January 2018
                29 January 2018
                2018
                : 17
                : 12
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9687 399X, GRID grid.411233.6, Centro de Tecnologia, , Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte UFRN, ; Av. Salgado Filho, Natal, Brazil
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9687 399X, GRID grid.411233.6, Laboratory of Technological Innovation in Healthcare, , Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), ; Natal, Brazil
                Article
                436
                10.1186/s12938-018-0436-1
                5789692
                29378578
                8d805e1e-b50b-452d-b8b5-1edd38164786
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 23 October 2017
                : 10 January 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008532, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte;
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Biomedical engineering
                artificial intelligence,osteoporosis,fracture,neural network,computer-aided detection system

                Comments

                Comment on this article