Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMartin, R. Kyle
dc.contributor.authorWastvedt, Solvejg
dc.contributor.authorPareek, Ayoosh
dc.contributor.authorPersson, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorVisnes, Håvard
dc.contributor.authorFenstad, Anne Marie
dc.contributor.authorMoatshe, Gilbert
dc.contributor.authorWolfson, Julian
dc.contributor.authorLind, Martin
dc.contributor.authorEngebretsen, Lars
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-13T11:22:21Z
dc.date.available2023-09-13T11:22:21Z
dc.date.created2023-06-09T10:16:11Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationAmerican Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023, 51(9), 2324-2332.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0363-5465
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3089144
dc.descriptionI Brage finner du siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, og den kan inneholde ubetydelige forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon. Forlagets pdf-versjon finner du på journals.sagepub.com / In Brage you'll find the final text version of the article, and it may contain insignificant differences from the journal's pdf version. The original publication is available at journals.sagepub.comen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Clinical tools based on machine learning analysis now exist for outcome prediction after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Relying partly on data volume, the general principle is that more data may lead to improved model accuracy. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to apply machine learning to a combined data set from the Norwegian and Danish knee ligament registers (NKLR and DKRR, respectively), with the aim of producing an algorithm that can predict revision surgery with improved accuracy relative to a previously published model developed using only the NKLR. The hypothesis was that the additional patient data would result in an algorithm that is more accurate. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Machine learning analysis was performed on combined data from the NKLR and DKRR. The primary outcome was the probability of revision ACLR within 1, 2, and 5 years. Data were split randomly into training sets (75%) and test sets (25%). There were 4 machine learning models examined: Cox lasso, random survival forest, gradient boosting, and super learner. Concordance and calibration were calculated for all 4 models. Results: The data set included 62,955 patients in which 5% underwent a revision surgical procedure with a mean follow-up of 7.6 ± 4.5 years. The 3 nonparametric models (random survival forest, gradient boosting, and super learner) performed best, demonstrating moderate concordance (0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.70]), and were well calibrated at 1 and 2 years. Model performance was similar to that of the previously published model (NKLR-only model: concordance, 0.67-0.69; well calibrated). Conclusion: Machine learning analysis of the combined NKLR and DKRR enabled prediction of the revision ACLR risk with moderate accuracy. However, the resulting algorithms were less user-friendly and did not demonstrate superior accuracy in comparison with the previously developed model based on patients from the NKLR alone, despite the analysis of nearly 63,000 patients. This ceiling effect suggests that simply adding more patients to current national knee ligament registers is unlikely to improve predictive capability and may prompt future changes to increase variable inclusion.en_US
dc.description.abstractCeiling Effect of the Combined Norwegian and Danish Knee Ligament Registers Limits Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcome Predictionen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectacl revisionen_US
dc.subjectoutcome predictionen_US
dc.subjectmachine learningen_US
dc.subjectartificial intelligenceen_US
dc.titleCeiling Effect of the Combined Norwegian and Danish Knee Ligament Registers Limits Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcome Predictionen_US
dc.title.alternativeCeiling Effect of the Combined Norwegian and Danish Knee Ligament Registers Limits Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcome Predictionen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber2324-2332en_US
dc.source.volume51en_US
dc.source.journalAmerican Journal of Sports Medicineen_US
dc.source.issue9en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/03635465231177905
dc.identifier.cristin2153248
dc.description.localcodeInstitutt for idrettsmedisinske fag / Department of Sport Sciencesen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel