Author
Listed:
- Michael H Schwartz
- Andrew G Georgiadis
Abstract
Clinical gait analysis (CGA) has historically relied on clinician experience and judgment, leading to modest, stagnant, and unpredictable outcomes. This paper introduces Evidence-Based Gait Analysis Interpretation Tools (EB-GAIT), a novel framework leveraging machine learning to support treatment decisions. The core of EB-GAIT consists of two key components: (1) treatment recommendation models, which are models that estimate the probability of specific surgeries based on historical standard-of-practice (SOP), and (2) treatment outcome models, which predict changes in patient characteristics following treatment or natural history. Using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), we developed and validated treatment recommendation models for 12 common surgeries that account for more than 95% of the surgery recorded in our CGA center’s database. These models demonstrated high balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. We used Shapley values for the models to enhances interpretability and allow clinicians and patients to understand the factors driving treatment recommendations. We also developed treatment outcome models for over 20 common outcome measures. These models were found to be unbiased, with reliable prediction intervals and accuracy comparable to experimental measurement error. We illustrated the application of EB-GAIT through a case study, showcasing its utility in providing treatment recommendations and outcome predictions. We then use simulations to show that combining recommendation and outcome models offers the possibility to improve outcomes for treated limbs, maintain outcomes for untreated limbs, and reduce the number of surgeries performed. For example, under the counterfactual situation where femoral derotation osteotomies are administered only when they align with historical standard of practice (> 50% probability of surgery) and are predicted to improve the Gait Deviation Index (change > 7.5 points), the model predicts a 11 percentage point reduction in surgeries (26% limbs currently, 15% limbs simulated), a 6 point improvement in Gait Deviation Index among treated limbs (6 currently, 12 simulated), and no change in Gait Deviation Index for untreated limbs (2 currently, 2 simulated). EB-GAIT represents a significant step toward precision medicine in CGA, offering a promising tool to enhance treatment outcomes and patient care. The EB-GAIT approach addresses the limitations of the conventional CGA interpretation method, offering a more structured and data-driven decision-making process. EB-GAIT is not intended to replace clinical judgment but to supplement it, providing clinicians with a second opinion grounded in historical data and predictive analytics. While the models perform well, their effectiveness is constrained by historical variability in treatment decisions and the inherent complexity of patient outcomes. Future efforts should focus on refining model inputs, incorporating surgical details, and pooling data from multiple centers to improve generalizability.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0328036. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.