Establish and validate the reliability of predictive models in bone mineral density by deep learning as examination tool for women.

Summary: While FRAX with BMD could be more precise in estimating the fracture risk, DL-based models were validated to slightly reduce the number of under- and over-treated patients when no BMD measurements were available. The validated models could be used to screen for patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis. Purpose: Fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) is useful in classifying the fracture risk level, and precise prediction can be achieved by estimating both clinical risk factors and bone mineral density (BMD) using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). However, DXA is not frequently feasible because of its cost and accessibility. This study aimed to establish the reliability of deep learning (DL)-based alternative tools for screening patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis. Methods: Participants were enrolled from the National Bone Health Screening Project of Taiwan in this cross-sectional study. First, DL-based models were built to predict the lowest T-score value in either the lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck and their respective BMD values. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to compare the agreement between the models and DXA. Second, the predictive model to classify patients with a high fracture risk was built according to the estimated BMD from the first step and the FRAX score without BMD. The performance of the model was compared with the classification based on FRAX with BMD. Results: Approximately 10,827 women (mean age, 65.4 ± 9.4 years) were enrolled. In the prediction of the lumbar spine BMD, total hip BMD, femoral neck BMD, and lowest T-score, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) was 0.099, 0.089, 0.076, and 0.68, respectively. The Bland–Altman analysis revealed a nonsignificant difference between the predictive models and DXA. The FRAX score with femoral neck BMD for major osteoporotic fracture risk was 9.7% ± 6.7%, whereas the risk for hip fracture was 3.3% ± 4.6%. Comparison between the classification of FRAX with and without BMD revealed the accuracy rate, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 78.8%, 64.6%, and 89.9%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy rate, PPV, and NPV of the classification model were 0.913 (95% confidence interval: 0.904–0.922), 83.5%, 71.2%, and 92.2%, respectively. Conclusion: While FRAX with BMD could be more precise in estimating the fracture risk, DL-based models were validated to slightly reduce the number of under- and over-treated patients when no BMD measurements were available. The validated models could be used to screen for patients at a high risk of fracture and osteoporosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]