Development and external validation of prediction models for major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture in people with intellectual disability
Smith, M.; Roast, J.; Collins, G. S.; Holt, T. A.; Frighi, V.
Show abstract
PurposeCompared with the general population, people with intellectual disabilities (ID) have higher incidences of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF), and osteoporosis develops at a younger age. The rate of HF in those aged 50 years and over is two and four times higher than that in women and men, respectively, without ID. It is essential to identify people with ID at risk of such fractures so that a targeted fracture prevention strategy can be designed. However, current fracture prediction models are derived from the general population and may underestimate risk in the ID population. MethodsPrediction models (IDFracture) for the 10-year risk of HF and MOF were developed and validated in populations of people with ID aged 30-79 years. Models were developed in the CPRD GOLD database and temporally validated in the Aurum database. The predictors included those in current fracture prediction models and ID-specific predictors such as Down syndrome. All the predictors were included in the Cox regression models. Bootstrapping was used to adjust for overfitting. ResultsThe development cohort included 38,665 people with IDs, 1045 with MOFs and 360 with HFs within 10 years. The external validation cohort included 76,385 people, 2420 MOFs and 1001 HFs. Discrimination, as judged by the C statistic, was good: MOF 0.775, HF 0.839. The calibration was also good but tended to overpredict at the highest predicted risks. ConclusionIDFracture has potential as a screening tool in clinical practice to identify people with ID who are at increased risk of MOF and HF. Mini AbstractO_ST_ABSBrief rationaleC_ST_ABSPeople with intellectual disability (ID) have a relatively high incidence of fracture, so current risk prediction models are not appropriate. Main resultA new prediction model for people with ID showed good calibration and discrimination in external validation. Significance of paperThis is the first such prediction model developed for people with ID.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The long-term impact of vaginal surgical mesh devices in UK primary care: a cohort study in the CPRD 90%
- Is age the most important risk factor in COVID-19 patients? The relevance of comorbidity burden: A retrospective analysis of 10,090 hospitalizations 90%
- Pre-morbid risk factors for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: prospective cohort study 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Coding Long COVID: Characterizing a new disease through an ICD-10 lens 91%
- Association of heavy menstrual bleeding with cardiovascular diseases in US female hospitalizations 91%
- Relation of severe COVID-19 in Scotland to transmission-related factors and risk conditions eligible for shielding support: REACT-SCOT case-control study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Replicating a COVID-19 study in a national England database to assess the generalisability of research with regional electronic health record data 91%
- Exploring Risk Factors for Comorbid Depression in Osteoarthritis: A Scoping Review Protocol 91%
- Can prognostic factors for indirect muscle injuries in elite football (soccer) players be identified using data from preseason screening? An exploratory analysis using routinely-collected periodic health examination records 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Illustrating Potential Effects of Alternate Control Populations on Real-World Evidence-based Statistical Analyses 91%
- Standardizing Phenotypic Algorithms for the Classification of Degenerative Rotator Cuff Tear from Electronic Health Record Systems 91%
- Trajectories: a framework for detecting temporal clinical event sequences from health data standardized to the OMOP Common Data Model 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.