Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 4, 2026

Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
Published on: August 16, 2020
Artificial Intelligence Applied to Osteoporosis: A Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms in
Uran Ferizi1, Harrison Besser1, Pirro Hysi2
1New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
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/m2 , and 60 women without fractures, of mean age = 62.3 and BMI = 21.4 kg/m2 . 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.
More Related Videos
07:13Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model
Published on: April 18, 2025
04:09Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Published on: October 10, 2018
Related Concept Videos
The Sense of Self: Reflected Self-Appraisal and Social Comparison
Performing a Simple Data Analysis using MS-Excel Function
SUM: This function calculates the total sum of a range of values. It's the foundation for aggregating data, essential for determining overall trends and totals in datasets.
AVERAGE: It computes the mean value of a given set of numbers, providing a quick insight into the central...
Intelligence
Machines
A free-body diagram of the...
Predicting Molecular Geometry
Trial and Error and Algorithm