Artificial Intelligence Applied to Osteoporosis: A Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Fragility Fractures From MRI Data. Issue 4 (25th September 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ferizi, Uran; Besser, Harrison; Hysi, Pirro; Jacobs, Joseph; Rajapakse, Chamith S.; Chen, Cheng; Saha, Punam K.; Honig, Stephen; Chang, Gregory
• Is Part Of: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. Volume 49:Issue 4(2019)
• Page Start: 1029
• Page End: 1038
• Publication Date: 2018-09-25
• Subjects: Magnetic resonance imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26280
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-1807

Abstract

Abstract : 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. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1029–1038.