Off-topic for aiqbench
This story was gathered from a source we follow but falls outside AI and quantum coverage, so there is no aiqbench take for it.
Fracture Risk Prediction in Adults Over 50 Years Old Using DXA and EHR: Comparison of Traditional and Machine Learning Models in Two Large Cohorts
arXiv:2607.28671v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate fracture risk prediction is important for osteoporosis management, but commonly used clinical tools may not fully use information available in electronic health records (EHRs) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) reports. We developed and externally validated time-to-event fracture prediction models among adults aged 50 years or older with clinically obtained DXA reports in 2 US health care systems. The development cohort was derived from NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the external validation cohort from the Indiana Network for Patient Care. Predictors included demographics, lifestyle factors, prior fracture, comorbidities, medication exposures, osteoporosis treatment history, and DXA-derived T-scores extracted from radiology reports. The outcome was time from index DXA to first incident fragility fracture identified from structured diagnosis codes. We evaluated penalized Cox regression, random survival forest, gradient-boosting survival, and XGBoost survival models using 2 prespecified predictor settings and compared discrimination with clinically reported FRAX major osteoporotic fracture probabilities. The development cohort included 11,510 adults, of whom 858 sustained incident fragility fractures; the external validation cohort included 1,932 adults, of whom 180 sustained fractures. In internal validation, the expanded Cox model achieved a mean Harrell C-index of 0.779, compared with 0.653 for FRAX. In external validation, the corresponding Cox model achieved a Harrell C-index of 0.714, compared with 0.590 for FRAX; gradient-boosting survival had the highest external discrimination (0.725). EHR- and DXA-enhanced models showed better discrimination than clinically reported FRAX scores in this DXA-tested population, but calibration assessment, prospective evaluation, and implementation workflow assessment are needed before clinical use.
Abstract:Accurate fracture risk prediction is important for osteoporosis management, but commonly used clinical tools may not fully use information available in electronic health records (EHRs) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) reports. We developed and externally validated time-to-event fracture prediction models among adults aged 50 years or older with clinically obtained DXA reports in 2 US health care systems. The development cohort was derived from NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the external validation cohort from the Indiana Network for Patient Care. Predictors included demographics, lifestyle factors, prior fracture, comorbidities, medication exposures, osteoporosis treatment history, and DXA-derived T-scores extracted from radiology reports. The outcome was time from index DXA to first incident fragility fracture identified from structured diagnosis codes. We evaluated penalized Cox regression, random survival forest, gradient-boosting survival, and XGBoost survival models using 2 prespecified predictor settings and compared discrimination with clinically reported FRAX major osteoporotic fracture probabilities. The development cohort included 11,510 adults, of whom 858 sustained incident fragility fractures; the external validation cohort included 1,932 adults, of whom 180 sustained fractures. In internal validation, the expanded Cox model achieved a mean Harrell C-index of 0.779, compared with 0.653 for FRAX. In external validation, the corresponding Cox model achieved a Harrell C-index of 0.714, compared with 0.590 for FRAX; gradient-boosting survival had the highest external discrimination (0.725). EHR- and DXA-enhanced models showed better discrimination than clinically reported FRAX scores in this DXA-tested population, but calibration assessment, prospective evaluation, and implementation workflow assessment are needed before clinical use.
Applications (stat.AP); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2607.28671 [stat.AP]
(or arXiv:2607.28671v1 [stat.AP] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28671 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 341 words
Related coverage
The current bottleneck is political will, not research
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 11, 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · Sep 21, 2026

How GoFundMe became America’s backup plan
The Verge · Aug 24, 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026