4.4 Article

Detecting knee osteoarthritis and its discriminating parameters using random forests

Journal

MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS
Volume 43, Issue -, Pages 19-29

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.02.004

Keywords

Knee osteoarthritis; Machine learning; Random forests; Ground reaction forces

Funding

  1. Medical Engineering Solutions in Osteoarthritis Centre of Excellence - Wellcome Trust
  2. EPSRC [088844/Z/09/Z]
  3. Human Frontiers in Science program grant [RGP0022/2012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper tackles the problem of automatic detection of knee osteoarthritis. A computer system is built that takes as input the body kinetics and produces as output not only an estimation of presence of the knee osteoarthritis, as previously done in the literature, but also the most discriminating parameters along with a set of rules on how this decision was reached. This fills the gap of interpretability between the medical and the engineering approaches. We collected locomotion data from 47 subjects with knee osteoarthritis and 47 healthy subjects. Osteoarthritis subjects were recruited from hospital clinics and GP surgeries, and age and sex matched healthy subjects from the local community. Subjects walked on a walkway equipped with two force plates with piezoelectric 3-component force sensors. Parameters of the vertical, anterior-posterior, and medio-lateral ground reaction forces, such as mean value, push-off time, and slope, were extracted. Then random forest regressors map those parameters via rule induction to the degree of knee osteoarthritis. To boost generalisation ability, a subject-independent protocol is employed. The 5-fold cross-validated accuracy is 72.61%+/- 4.24%. We show that with 3 steps or less a reliable clinical measure can be extracted in a rule-based approach when the dataset is analysed appropriately. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IPEM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available