用电子病历和骨密度数据,机器学习预测50岁以上骨折风险更准。
Fracture Risk Prediction in Adults Over 50 Years Old Using DXA and EHR: Comparison of Traditional and Machine Learning Models in Two Large Cohorts
- 融合电子病历与骨密度报告,用机器学习建模预测骨折
- 新模型外部验证的区分度达0.725,远超传统FRAX的0.590
- 适合临床研究者或骨质疏松管理团队参考使用
准确预测骨折风险对骨质疏松管理至关重要,但现有临床工具未能充分挖掘电子健康记录(EHR)和双能X线吸收检测(DXA)报告中的信息。本研究在两家美国医疗系统中,针对50岁以上接受过临床DXA检查的成人,开发并外部验证了时间至事件骨折预测模型。开发队列来自纽约-长老会/威尔康奈尔医学中心,外部验证队列来自印第安纳患者护理网络。预测因子包括人口学特征、生活方式、既往骨折、共病、用药史、抗骨质疏松治疗史以及从放射科报告中提取的DXA T值。结局为首次脆性骨折发生时间,通过结构化诊断编码识别。评估了惩罚性Cox回归、随机生存森林、梯度提升生存及XGBoost生存模型,采用两种预设预测因子设置,并与临床报告的FRAX主要骨质疏松性骨折概率比较区分度。开发队列包含11,510人,其中858人发生新发脆性骨折;外部验证队列包含1,932人,其中180人发生骨折。内部验证中,扩展Cox模型的平均哈雷尔C指数为0.779,高于FRAX的0.653;外部验证中,对应Cox模型的哈雷尔C指数为0.714,优于FRAX的0.590;梯度提升生存模型外部区分度最高,达0.725。基于EHR与DXA增强的模型在该DXA检测人群中表现优于临床报告的FRAX评分,但需进一步开展校准评估、前瞻性验证及实施流程评估后方可用于临床。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Accurate fracture risk prediction is important for osteoporosis management, but commonly used clinical tools may not fully use information available in electronic health records (EHRs) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) reports. We developed and externally validated time-to-event fracture prediction models among adults aged 50 years or older with clinically obtained DXA reports in 2 US health care systems. The development cohort was derived from NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the external validation cohort from the Indiana Network for Patient Care. Predictors included demographics, lifestyle factors, prior fracture, comorbidities, medication exposures, osteoporosis treatment history, and DXA-derived T-scores extracted from radiology reports. The outcome was time from index DXA to first incident fragility fracture identified from structured diagnosis codes. We evaluated penalized Cox regression, random survival forest, gradient-boosting survival, and XGBoost survival models using 2 prespecified predictor settings and compared discrimination with clinically reported FRAX major osteoporotic fracture probabilities. The development cohort included 11,510 adults, of whom 858 sustained incident fragility fractures; the external validation cohort included 1,932 adults, of whom 180 sustained fractures. In internal validation, the expanded Cox model achieved a mean Harrell C-index of 0.779, compared with 0.653 for FRAX. In external validation, the corresponding Cox model achieved a Harrell C-index of 0.714, compared with 0.590 for FRAX; gradient-boosting survival had the highest external discrimination (0.725). EHR- and DXA-enhanced models showed better discrimination than clinically reported FRAX scores in this DXA-tested population, but calibration assessment, prospective evaluation, and implementation workflow assessment are needed before clinical use.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。