Skip to main content

Table 7 Main studies in the use of artificial intelligence as an aid to the diagnosis of osteoporosis

From: Artificial intelligence on the identification of risk groups for osteoporosis, a general review

Author/article

Conventional method

Y

AI

%

VAR

PAC

Country

Gender

Kung et al. [50]

2002

OSTA

91.0

22

722

China

F

Rizzi et al. [15]

2004

MoG

N/A

3

845

Italy

F

Wenjia et al. [16]

2005

Hybrid

85.7

5

2.158

Iran

F

Chiu et al. [18]

2006

ANN

79.2

7

1.403

Taiwan

M/F

Leslie et al. [23]

2009

Algorithm

93.3

5

4.015

Canada

F

Mantzaris et al. [24]

2010

LVQ

96.6

4

3.426

Greece

M/F

Cos Juez et al. [25]

2010

MLP

97.9

10

200

Spain

F

Jennane et al. [44]

2012

SVM

87.0

20

69

Argentina

F

Harrar et al. [26]

2012

MLP

97.0

5

120

France

F

Yoo et al. [27]

2013

SVM

76.7

11

1674

South Korea

F

Anburajan et al. [28]

2013

SVM

90.0

5

50

India

F

Kavitha et al. [29]

2013

SVM

91.8

3

100

Japan

F

Tafraouti et al. [30]

2014

SVM

93.0

16

77

France

M/F

Iliou et al. [31]

2015

MLP

83.0

35

589

Greece

M/F

Liu et al. [32]

2015

MLP

93.0

10

725

Taiwan

M/F

Xinghu et al. [33]

2016

ANN

95.0

17

119

China

M/F

  1. SVM support vector machines, RF random forests, ANN artificial neural networks, MoG mixture of Gaussian, OSTA Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool for Asian, PNN probabilistic neural network, LVQ learning vector quantization, MLP Multilayer Perceptron, HAC histogram-based automatic clustering, M masculine, F feminine, Y year, AI artificial intelligence, % precision, VAR amount of variables, PAC number of patients