Advertisement

Physical Activity as a Risk Factor in the Progression of Osteoarthritis: A Machine Learning Perspective

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12096)

Abstract

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) comes with a variety of symptoms’ intensity, frequency and pattern. Most of the current methods in KOA diagnosis are very expensive commonly measuring changes in joint morphology and function. So, it is very important to diagnose KOA early, which can be achieved with early identification of significant risk factors in clinical data. Our objective in this paper is to investigate the predictive capacity of physical activity measures as risk factors in the progression of KOA. In order to achieve this, a machine learning approach is proposed here for KOA prediction using features extracted from an accelerometer bracelet. Various ML models were explored for their suitability in implementing the learning task on different combinations of feature subsets. Results up to 74.5% were achieved indicating that physical activity measured by accelerometers may constitute an important risk factor for KOA progression prediction especially if it is combined with complementary data sources.

Keywords

Knee osteoarthritis prediction Machine learning Wearable activity data Physical function Knee joint 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has received funding from the European Community’s H2020 Programme, under grant agreement Nr. 777159 (OACTIVE).

References

  1. 1.
    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, C., Breiman, L.: Using Random Forest to Learn Imbalanced Data. University of California, Berkeley (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christodoulou, E., Moustakidis, S., Papandrianos, N., Tsaopoulos, D., Papageorgiou, E.: Exploring deep learning capabilities in knee osteoarthritis case study for classification. In: 2019 10th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cortes, C., Vapnik, V.: Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20(3), 273–297 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022627411411CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cover, T., Hart, P.: Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. 13(1), 21–27 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1967.1053964CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freedson, P., Melanson, E., Sirard, J.: Calibration of the computer science and applications, inc. accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sports Exercise 30(5), 777–781 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021
  7. 7.
    Lazzarini, N., et al.: A machine learning approach for the identification of new biomarkers for knee osteoarthritis development in overweight and obese women. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 25 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2017.09.001
  8. 8.
    Long, M., Papi, E., Duffell, L., McGregor, A.: Predicting knee osteoarthritis risk in injured populations. Clin. Biomech. 47, 87–95 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moustakidis, S., Christodoulou, E., Papageorgiou, E., Kokkotis, C., Papandrianos, N., Tsaopoulos, D.: Application of machine intelligence for osteoarthritis classification: a classical implementation and a quantum perspective. Quantum Mach. Intell. 1–14 (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moustakidis, S., Theocharis, J., Giakas, G.: A fuzzy decision tree-based svm classifier for assessing osteoarthritis severity using ground reaction force measurements. Med. Eng. Phys. 32(10), 1145–1160 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Phinyomark, A., Osis, S., Hettinga, B., Kobsar, D., Ferber, R.: Gender differences in gait kinematics for patients with knee osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 17 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1013-z
  12. 12.
    Quinlan, J.R.: Induction of decision trees. Mach. Learn. 1(1), 81–106 (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022643204877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seiffert, C., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Van Hulse, J., Napolitano, A.: Rusboost: a hybrid approach to alleviating class imbalance. Trans. Sys. Man Cyber. Part A 40(1), 185–197 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2009.2029559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swartz, A.M., Strath, S.J., BASSETT, D.R., O’BRIEN, W.L., King, G.A., Ainsworth, B.E.: Estimation of energy expenditure using CSA accelerometers at hip and wrist sites. Med. Sci. Sports Exercise 32(9), S450–S456 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Troiano, R.P., Berrigan, D., Dodd, K.W., Masse, L.C., Tilert, T., McDowell, M.: Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sports Exercise 40(1), 181–188 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vendittoli, P.A., Ouakrim, Y., Fuentes, A., Mitiche, A., Hagemeister, N., de Guise, J.: Mechanical biomarkers of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis diagnosis and severity grading: discovery phase. J. Biomech. 52 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.12.022
  17. 17.
    Yoo, T., Kim, D.W., Choi, S., Oh, E., Park, J.S.: Simple scoring system and artificial neural network for knee osteoarthritis risk prediction: a cross-sectional study. PloS One 11, e0148724 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148724

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece
  2. 2.Center for Research and Technology HellasInstitute of Bio-Economy and Agri-TechnologyVolosGreece
  3. 3.Department of Physical Education and Sport ScienceUniversity of ThessalyTrikalaGreece
  4. 4.AIDEAS OÜTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations