Predicting Knee Joint Kinematics from Wearable Sensor Data in People with Knee Osteoarthritis and Clinical Considerations for Future Machine Learning Models.

Deep learning models developed to predict knee joint kinematics are usually trained on inertial measurement unit (IMU) data from healthy people and only for the activity of walking. Yet, people with knee osteoarthritis have difficulties with other activities and there are a lack of studies using IMU training data from this population. Our objective was to conduct a proof-of-concept study to determine the feasibility of using IMU training data from people with knee osteoarthritis performing multiple clinically important activities to predict knee joint sagittal plane kinematics using a deep learning approach. We trained a bidirectional long short-term memory model on IMU data from 17 participants with knee osteoarthritis to estimate knee joint flexion kinematics for phases of walking, transitioning to and from a chair, and negotiating stairs. We tested two models, a double-leg model (four IMUs) and a single-leg model (two IMUs). The single-leg model demonstrated less prediction error compared to the double-leg model. Across the different activity phases, RMSE (SD) ranged from 7.04° (2.6) to 11.78° (6.04), MAE (SD) from 5.99° (2.34) to 10.37° (5.44), and Pearson's R from 0.85 to 0.99 using leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using IMU training data from people who have knee osteoarthritis for the prediction of kinematics for multiple clinically relevant activities.

Prediction models used in the progression of chronic kidney disease: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of prediction models that have been used to measure clinical or pathological progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from the year 2011 to 17th February 2022. STUDY SELECTION: All English written studies that are published in peer-reviewed journals in any country, that developed at least a statistical or computational model that predicted the risk of CKD progression. DATA EXTRACTION: Eligible studies for full text review were assessed on the methods that were used to predict the progression of CKD. The type of information extracted included: the author(s), title of article, year of publication, study dates, study location, number of participants, study design, predicted outcomes, type of prediction model, prediction variables used, validation assessment, limitations and implications. RESULTS: From 516 studies, 33 were included for full-text review. A qualitative analysis of the articles was compared following the extracted information. The study populations across the studies were heterogenous and data acquired by the studies were sourced from different levels and locations of healthcare systems. 31 studies implemented supervised models, and 2 studies included unsupervised models. Regardless of the model used, the predicted outcome included measurement of risk of progression towards end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) of related definitions, over given time intervals. However, there is a lack of reporting consistency on details of the development of their prediction models. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers are working towards producing an effective model to provide key insights into the progression of CKD. This review found that cox regression modelling was predominantly used among the small number of studies in the review. This made it difficult to perform a comparison between ML algorithms, more so when different validation methods were used in different cohort types. There needs to be increased investment in a more consistent and reproducible approach for future studies looking to develop risk prediction models for CKD progression.

Stillbirth risk prediction using machine learning for a large cohort of births from Western Australia, 1980-2015.

Quantification of stillbirth risk has potential to support clinical decision-making. Studies that have attempted to quantify stillbirth risk have been hampered by small event rates, a limited range of predictors that typically exclude obstetric history, lack of validation, and restriction to a single classifier (logistic regression). Consequently, predictive performance remains low, and risk quantification has not been adopted into antenatal practice. The study population consisted of all births to women in Western Australia from 1980 to 2015, excluding terminations. After all exclusions there were 947,025 livebirths and 5,788 stillbirths. Predictive models for stillbirth were developed using multiple machine learning classifiers: regularised logistic regression, decision trees based on classification and regression trees, random forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and a multilayer perceptron neural network. We applied 10-fold cross-validation using independent data not used to develop the models. Predictors included maternal socio-demographic characteristics, chronic medical conditions, obstetric complications and family history in both the current and previous pregnancy. In this cohort, 66% of stillbirths were observed for multiparous women. The best performing classifier (XGBoost) predicted 45% (95% CI: 43%, 46%) of stillbirths for all women and 45% (95% CI: 43%, 47%) of stillbirths after the inclusion of previous pregnancy history. Almost half of stillbirths could be potentially identified antenatally based on a combination of current pregnancy complications, congenital anomalies, maternal characteristics, and medical history. Greatest sensitivity is achieved with addition of current pregnancy complications. Ensemble classifiers offered marginal improvement for prediction compared to logistic regression.