Endocrinol Metab.  2021 Oct;36(5):928-937. 10.3803/EnM.2021.1111.

Applications of Machine Learning in Bone and Mineral Research

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 2Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
  • 3Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Abstract

In this unprecedented era of the overwhelming volume of medical data, machine learning can be a promising tool that may shed light on an individualized approach and a better understanding of the disease in the field of osteoporosis research, similar to that in other research fields. This review aimed to provide an overview of the latest studies using machine learning to address issues, mainly focusing on osteoporosis and fractures. Machine learning models for diagnosing and classifying osteoporosis and detecting fractures from images have shown promising performance. Fracture risk prediction is another promising field of research, and studies are being conducted using various data sources. However, these approaches may be biased due to the nature of the techniques or the quality of the data. Therefore, more studies based on the proposed guidelines are needed to improve the technical feasibility and generalizability of artificial intelligence algorithms.

Keyword

Osteoporosis; Data science; Medical informatics

Figure

  • Fig. 1 The trend in the number and categories of machine learning-related publications per year in the field of bone and mineral research. The included publications were from PubMed until the search date (May 30th, 2021). Search strategies were (“Osteoporo-sis”[Mesh] OR “Osteoporotic Fractures”[Mesh] OR “Hip Frac-tures”[Mesh] OR “Spinal Fractures”[Mesh] OR “Humeral Frac-tures”[Mesh] OR “Bone Density”[Mesh] OR Osteoporos*[tiab] OR “fragility fractur*”[tiab] OR (Fractur*[tiab] AND (spin*[tiab] OR vertebra*[tiab] OR hip[tiab] OR humer*[tiab])) OR “bone mineral densit*”[tiab]) AND (“Artificial Intelligence”[Mesh:noexp] OR “machine learning”[Mesh] OR “Neural Networks, Computer” [Mesh] OR “artificial Intelligence”[tiab] OR “machine learning” [tiab] OR “deep learning”[tiab] OR “neural network*”[tiab]) AND English[la]).

  • Fig. 2 Cross table of the relationship between the results of the algorithm and reference standard. AI, artificial intelligence; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FN, false negative; TN, true negative.


Reference

1. National Osteoporosis Foundation. National Bone Health Policy. New report on burden of osteoporosis highlights huge and growing economic and human toll of the disease [Internet]. Arlington: National Osteoporosis Foundation;2019. [cited 2021 Sep 23]. Available from: https://www.nof.org/news/new-report-on-burden-of-osteoporosis-highlights-huge-and-growing-economic-and-human-toll-of-the-disease .
2. Kim HY, Ha YC, Kim TY, Cho H, Lee YK, Baek JY, et al. Healthcare costs of osteoporotic fracture in Korea: information from the National Health Insurance Claims Database, 2008–2011. J Bone Metab. 2017; 24:125–33.
Article
3. Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Johansson H, Oden A, Leslie WD, McCloskey EV. FRAX update. J Clin Densitom. 2017; 20:360–7.
Article
4. Aspray TJ. New horizons in fracture risk assessment. Age Ageing. 2013; 42:548–54.
Article
5. Hong N, Park H, Rhee Y. Machine learning applications in endocrinology and metabolism research: an overview. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2020; 35:71–84.
Article
6. Weber GM, Mandl KD, Kohane IS. Finding the missing link for big biomedical data. JAMA. 2014; 311:2479–80.
Article
7. Cook S. Programming: a developer’s guide to parallel computing with GPUs (applications of GPU computing). Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers;2012.
8. Dimitriadis VK, Gavriilidis GI, Natsiavas P. Pharmacovigilance and clinical environment: utilizing OMOP-CDM and OHDSI software stack to integrate EHR data. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2021; 281:555–9.
Article
9. Fang Y, Li W, Chen X, Chen K, Kang H, Yu P, et al. Opportunistic osteoporosis screening in multi-detector CT images using deep convolutional neural networks. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31:1831–42.
Article
10. Gonzalez G, Washko GR, Estepar RS. Deep learning for biomarker regression: application to osteoporosis and emphysema on chest CT scans. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2018; 10574:105741H.
11. Yasaka K, Akai H, Kunimatsu A, Kiryu S, Abe O. Prediction of bone mineral density from computed tomography: application of deep learning with a convolutional neural network. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30:3549–57.
Article
12. Nam KH, Seo I, Kim DH, Lee JI, Choi BK, Han IH. Machine learning model to predict osteoporotic spine with Hounsfield units on lumbar computed tomography. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2019; 62:442–9.
Article
13. Krishnaraj A, Barrett S, Bregman-Amitai O, Cohen-Sfady M, Bar A, Chettrit D, et al. Simulating dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in CT using deep-learning segmentation cascade. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16:1473–9.
Article
14. Areeckal AS, Jayasheelan N, Kamath J, Zawadynski S, Kocher M, David SS. Early diagnosis of osteoporosis using radiogrammetry and texture analysis from hand and wrist radiographs in Indian population. Osteoporos Int. 2018; 29:665–73.
Article
15. Tecle N, Teitel J, Morris MR, Sani N, Mitten D, Hammert WC. Convolutional neural network for second metacarpal radiographic osteoporosis screening. J Hand Surg Am. 2020; 45:175–81.
Article
16. Yamamoto N, Sukegawa S, Kitamura A, Goto R, Noda T, Nakano K, et al. Deep learning for osteoporosis classification using hip radiographs and patient clinical covariates. Biomolecules. 2020; 10:1534.
Article
17. Zhang B, Yu K, Ning Z, Wang K, Dong Y, Liu X, et al. Deep learning of lumbar spine X-ray for osteopenia and osteoporosis screening: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Bone. 2020; 140:115561.
Article
18. Liu J, Wang J, Ruan W, Lin C, Chen D. Diagnostic and gradation model of osteoporosis based on improved deep U-Net network. J Med Syst. 2019; 44:15.
Article
19. Zhang T, Liu P, Zhang Y, Wang W, Lu Y, Xi M, et al. Combining information from multiple bone turnover markers as diagnostic indices for osteoporosis using support vector machines. Biomarkers. 2019; 24:120–6.
Article
20. Wang J, Yan D, Zhao A, Hou X, Zheng X, Chen P, et al. Discovery of potential biomarkers for osteoporosis using LC-MS/MS metabolomic methods. Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30:1491–9.
Article
21. Meng J, Sun N, Chen Y, Li Z, Cui X, Fan J, et al. Artificial neural network optimizes self-examination of osteoporosis risk in women. J Int Med Res. 2019; 47:3088–98.
Article
22. Shim JG, Kim DW, Ryu KH, Cho EA, Ahn JH, Kim JI, et al. Application of machine learning approaches for osteoporosis risk prediction in postmenopausal women. Arch Osteoporos. 2020; 15:169.
Article
23. Sun X, Qiao Y, Li W, Sui Y, Ruan Y, Xiao J. A graphene oxide-aided triple helical aggregation-induced emission biosensor for highly specific detection of charged collagen peptides. J Mater Chem B. 2020; 8:6027–33.
Article
24. Zheng K, Harris CE, Jennane R, Makrogiannis S. Integrative blockwise sparse analysis for tissue characterization and classification. Artif Intell Med. 2020; 107:101885.
Article
25. Lee JS, Adhikari S, Liu L, Jeong HG, Kim H, Yoon SJ. Osteoporosis detection in panoramic radiographs using a deep convolutional neural network-based computer-assisted diagnosis system: a preliminary study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019; 48:20170344.
Article
26. Singh A, Dutta MK, Jennane R, Lespessailles E. Classification of the trabecular bone structure of osteoporotic patients using machine vision. Comput Biol Med. 2017; 91:148–58.
Article
27. Dwivedi R, Singh C, Yu B, Wainwright MJ. Revisiting complexity and the bias-variance tradeoff. arXiv. 2020. Jun. 17. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10189 .
28. Sun C, Shrivastava A, Singh S, Gupta A. Revisiting unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era. In : Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision; 2017 Oct 22–29; Venice, Italy. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society;2017. p. 843–52.
Article
29. Tomita N, Cheung YY, Hassanpour S. Deep neural networks for automatic detection of osteoporotic vertebral fractures on CT scans. Comput Biol Med. 2018; 98:8–15.
Article
30. Lindsey R, Daluiski A, Chopra S, Lachapelle A, Mozer M, Sicular S, et al. Deep neural network improves fracture detection by clinicians. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018; 115:11591–6.
Article
31. Kim DH, MacKinnon T. Artificial intelligence in fracture detection: transfer learning from deep convolutional neural networks. Clin Radiol. 2018; 73:439–45.
Article
32. Chung SW, Han SS, Lee JW, Oh KS, Kim NR, Yoon JP, et al. Automated detection and classification of the proximal humerus fracture by using deep learning algorithm. Acta Orthop. 2018; 89:468–73.
Article
33. Olczak J, Fahlberg N, Maki A, Razavian AS, Jilert A, Stark A, et al. Artificial intelligence for analyzing orthopedic trauma radiographs. Acta Orthop. 2017; 88:581–6.
Article
34. Brett A, Miller CG, Hayes CW, Krasnow J, Ozanian T, Abrams K, et al. Development of a clinical workflow tool to enhance the detection of vertebral fractures: accuracy and precision evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34:2437–43.
35. Adams M, Chen W, Holcdorf D, McCusker MW, Howe PD, Gaillard F. Computer vs human: deep learning versus perceptual training for the detection of neck of femur fractures. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019; 63:27–32.
Article
36. Kitamura G. Deep learning evaluation of pelvic radiographs for position, hardware presence, and fracture detection. Eur J Radiol. 2020; 130:109139.
Article
37. Mutasa S, Varada S, Goel A, Wong TT, Rasiej MJ. Advanced deep learning techniques applied to automated femoral neck fracture detection and classification. J Digit Imaging. 2020; 33:1209–17.
Article
38. Urakawa T, Tanaka Y, Goto S, Matsuzawa H, Watanabe K, Endo N. Detecting intertrochanteric hip fractures with orthopedist-level accuracy using a deep convolutional neural network. Skeletal Radiol. 2019; 48:239–44.
Article
39. Mawatari T, Hayashida Y, Katsuragawa S, Yoshimatsu Y, Hamamura T, Anai K, et al. The effect of deep convolutional neural networks on radiologists’ performance in the detection of hip fractures on digital pelvic radiographs. Eur J Radiol. 2020; 130:109188.
Article
40. Jimenez-Sanchez A, Kazi A, Albarqouni S, Kirchhoff C, Biberthaler P, Navab N, et al. Precise proximal femur fracture classification for interactive training and surgical planning. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2020; 15:847–57.
Article
41. Yamada Y, Maki S, Kishida S, Nagai H, Arima J, Yamakawa N, et al. Automated classification of hip fractures using deep convolutional neural networks with orthopedic surgeon-level accuracy: ensemble decision-making with antero-posterior and lateral radiographs. Acta Orthop. 2020; 91:699–704.
Article
42. Yu JS, Yu SM, Erdal BS, Demirer M, Gupta V, Bigelow M, et al. Detection and localisation of hip fractures on anteroposterior radiographs with artificial intelligence: proof of concept. Clin Radiol. 2020; 75:237.
Article
43. Murata K, Endo K, Aihara T, Suzuki H, Sawaji Y, Matsuoka Y, et al. Artificial intelligence for the detection of vertebral fractures on plain spinal radiography. Sci Rep. 2020; 10:20031.
Article
44. FDA cleared AI algorithms [Internet]. Reston: Data Science Institute American College of Radiology;2021. [cited 2021 Sep 23]. Available from: https://models.acrdsi.org .
45. Badgeley MA, Zech JR, Oakden-Rayner L, Glicksberg BS, Liu M, Gale W, et al. Deep learning predicts hip fracture using confounding patient and healthcare variables. NPJ Digit Med. 2019; 2:31.
Article
46. Valentinitsch A, Trebeschi S, Kaesmacher J, Lorenz C, Loffler MT, Zimmer C, et al. Opportunistic osteoporosis screening in multi-detector CT images via local classification of textures. Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30:1275–85.
Article
47. Burns JE, Yao J, Summers RM. Vertebral body compression fractures and bone density: automated detection and classification on CT images. Radiology. 2017; 284:788–97.
Article
48. Pranata YD, Wang KC, Wang JC, Idram I, Lai JY, Liu JW, et al. Deep learning and SURF for automated classification and detection of calcaneus fractures in CT images. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2019; 171:27–37.
Article
49. Carballido-Gamio J, Yu A, Wang L, Su Y, Burghardt AJ, Lang TF, et al. Hip fracture discrimination based on statistical multi-parametric modeling (SMPM). Ann Biomed Eng. 2019; 47:2199–212.
Article
50. Gebre RK, Hirvasniemi J, Lantto I, Saarakkala S, Leppilahti J, Jamsa T. Discrimination of low-energy acetabular fractures from controls using computed tomography-based bone characteristics. Ann Biomed Eng. 2021; 49:367–81.
Article
51. Chen YF, Lin CS, Wang KA, Rahman OA, Lee DJ, Chung WS, et al. Design of a clinical decision support system for fracture prediction using imbalanced dataset. J Healthc Eng. 2018; 2018:9621640.
Article
52. Korfiatis VC, Tassani S, Matsopoulos GK, Korfiatis VC, Tassani S, Matsopoulos GK. A new ensemble classification system for fracture zone prediction using imbalanced micro-CT bone morphometrical data. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2018; 22:1189–96.
Article
53. Su Y, Kwok TC, Cummings SR, Yip BH, Cawthon PM. Can classification and regression tree analysis help identify clinically meaningful risk groups for hip fracture prediction in older American men (The MrOS Cohort Study)? JBMR Plus. 2019; 3:e10207.
Article
54. Kong SH, Ahn D, Kim BR, Srinivasan K, Ram S, Kim H, et al. A novel fracture prediction model using machine learning in a community-based cohort. JBMR Plus. 2020; 4:e10337.
Article
55. Engels A, Reber KC, Lindlbauer I, Rapp K, Buchele G, Klenk J, et al. Osteoporotic hip fracture prediction from risk factors available in administrative claims data: a machine learning approach. PLoS One. 2020; 15:e0232969.
56. Muehlematter UJ, Mannil M, Becker AS, Vokinger KN, Finkenstaedt T, Osterhoff G, et al. Vertebral body insufficiency fractures: detection of vertebrae at risk on standard CT images using texture analysis and machine learning. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29:2207–17.
Article
57. Almog YA, Rai A, Zhang P, Moulaison A, Powell R, Mishra A, et al. Deep learning with electronic health records for short-term fracture risk identification: crystal bone algorithm development and validation. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22:e22550.
Article
58. Kruse C, Eiken P, Vestergaard P. Clinical fracture risk evaluated by hierarchical agglomerative clustering. Osteoporos Int. 2017; 28:819–32.
Article
59. Wang Y, Zhao Y, Therneau TM, Atkinson EJ, Tafti AP, Zhang N, et al. Unsupervised machine learning for the discovery of latent disease clusters and patient subgroups using electronic health records. J Biomed Inform. 2020; 102:103364.
Article
60. Shioji M, Yamamoto T, Ibata T, Tsuda T, Adachi K, Yoshimura N. Artificial neural networks to predict future bone mineral density and bone loss rate in Japanese postmenopausal women. BMC Res Notes. 2017; 10:590.
Article
61. Ye C, Li J, Hao S, Liu M, Jin H, Zheng L, et al. Identification of elders at higher risk for fall with statewide electronic health records and a machine learning algorithm. Int J Med Inform. 2020; 137:104105.
Article
62. Cuaya-Simbro G, Perez-Sanpablo AI, Munoz-Melendez A, Quinones I, Morales-Manzanares EF, Nunez-Carrera L. Comparison of machine learning models to predict risk. Found Comput Decis Sci. 2020; 45:65–77.
63. Kruse C, Eiken P, Vestergaard P. Machine learning principles can improve hip fracture prediction. Calcif Tissue Int. 2017; 100:348–60.
Article
64. Fan Y, Li Y, Li Y, Feng S, Bao X, Feng M, et al. Development and assessment of machine learning algorithms for predicting remission after transsphenoidal surgery among patients with acromegaly. Endocrine. 2020; 67:412–22.
Article
65. Basu S, Raghavan S, Wexler DJ, Berkowitz SA. Characteristics associated with decreased or increased mortality risk from glycemic therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk: machine learning analysis of the ACCORD trial. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41:604–12.
Article
66. Leiserson MD, Syrgkanis V, Gilson A, Dudik M, Gillett S, Chayes J, et al. A multifactorial model of T cell expansion and durable clinical benefit in response to a PD-L1 inhibitor. PLoS One. 2018; 13:e0208422.
Article
67. Snyder A, Nathanson T, Funt SA, Ahuja A, Buros Novik J, Hellmann MD, et al. Contribution of systemic and somatic factors to clinical response and resistance to PD-L1 blockade in urothelial cancer: an exploratory multi-omic analysis. PLoS Med. 2017; 14:e1002309.
Article
68. Williams SA, Kivimaki M, Langenberg C, Hingorani AD, Casas JP, Bouchard C, et al. Plasma protein patterns as comprehensive indicators of health. Nat Med. 2019; 25:1851–7.
Article
69. The Lancet. Is digital medicine different? Lancet. 2018; 392:95.
70. AI diagnostics need attention. Nature. 2018; 555:285.
71. Kim DW, Jang HY, Kim KW, Shin Y, Park SH. Design characteristics of studies reporting the performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for diagnostic analysis of medical images: results from recently published papers. Korean J Radiol. 2019; 20:405–10.
Article
72. Ibrahim H, Liu X, Rivera SC, Moher D, Chan AW, Sydes MR, et al. Reporting guidelines for clinical trials of artificial intelligence interventions: the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines. Trials. 2021; 22:11.
Article
73. Sounderajah V, Ashrafian H, Aggarwal R, De Fauw J, Denniston AK, Greaves F, et al. Developing specific reporting guidelines for diagnostic accuracy studies assessing AI interventions: the STARD-AI Steering Group. Nat Med. 2020; 26:807–8.
Article
74. England JR, Cheng PM. Artificial intelligence for medical image analysis: a guide for authors and reviewers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212:513–9.
Article
75. Park SH, Han K. Methodologic guide for evaluating clinical performance and effect of artificial intelligence technology for medical diagnosis and prediction. Radiology. 2018; 286:800–9.
Article
Full Text Links
  • ENM
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr