Hip Morphology–Based Osteoarthritis Risk Prediction Models: Development and External Validation Using Individual Participant Data From the World COACH Consortium

van den Berg, MA; Boel, F; van Buuren, MMA; Riedstra, NS; Tang, J; Ahedi, H; Arden, NK; Bierma‐Zeinstra, SMA; Boer, CG; Cicuttini, FM; Cootes, TF; Felson, DT; Gielis, WP; Heerey, J; Jones, G; Kluzek, S; Lane, NE; Lindner, C; van Meurs, JBJ; Mosler, A; Nelson, AE; Nevitt, MC; Oei, EH; Runhaar, J

Journal article

Hip Morphology–Based Osteoarthritis Risk Prediction Models: Development and External Validation Using Individual Participant Data From the World COACH Consortium

Abstract:: Objective: This study aims to develop hip morphology‐based radiographic hip osteoarthritis (RHOA) risk prediction models and investigates the added predictive value of hip morphology measurements and the generalizability to different populations. Methods: We combined data from nine prospective cohort studies participating in the Worldwide Collaboration on OsteoArthritis prediCtion for the Hip (World COACH) consortium. RHOA grades were harmonized, and incident RHOA was defined as hips without definite RHOA at baseline that developed definite RHOA within four to eight years. Baseline hip morphology was quantified with automatically and uniformly determined lateral center edge angle and alpha angle measurements on anteroposterior radiographs. Discriminative performance of generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) definitions with and without hip morphology measurements was determined with stratified cross‐validation. With leave‐one‐cohort‐out cross‐validation, the generalizability to unseen populations of hip morphology–based GLMMs and random forest (RF) models was evaluated. Results: From the included 35,984 hips without definite RHOA at baseline, 4.7% developed incident RHOA within four to eight years. The GLMM with cohort‐specific intercept, considering baseline demographics, RHOA grade, and hip morphology measurements, showed a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.80 (±0.01) in stratified cross‐validation. Using a marginal intercept decreased performance by 0.1 in AUC. Similar results were found for a GLMM without hip morphology measurements. Leave‐one‐cohort‐out cross‐validation showed comparable discrimination (AUC between 0.56–0.88) and calibration performance for hip morphology‐based GLMMs and RF models. Conclusion: In hips free of definite RHOA, our AUCs for the incident RHOA models showed good predictive performance in similar populations. However, the added predictive value of the morphology measurements was small, and model performance was heterogeneous in leave‐one‐cohort‐out cross‐validation. image

Publication status:: Published

Peer review status:: Peer reviewed

Actions

Email

Email this record

Send the bibliographic details of this record to your email address.

Your Email
Please enter the email address that the record information will be sent to.

-
Your message (optional)
Please add any additional information to be included within the email.
Share
Cite

Cite this record

APA Style

van den Berg, M. A., Boel, F., van Buuren, M. M. A., Riedstra, N. S., Tang, J., Ahedi, H., Arden, N. K., Bierma‐Zeinstra, S. M. A., Boer, C. G., Cicuttini, F. M., Cootes, T. F., Felson, D. T., Gielis, W. P., Heerey, J., Jones, G., Kluzek, S., Lane, N. E., Lindner, C., van Meurs, J. B. J., … Runhaar, J. (2026). Hip Morphology–Based Osteoarthritis Risk Prediction Models: Development and External Validation Using Individual Participant Data From the World COACH Consortium. Arthritis Care & Research.

MLA Style

van den Berg, MA, et al. “Hip Morphology–Based Osteoarthritis Risk Prediction Models: Development and External Validation Using Individual Participant Data From the World COACH Consortium.” Arthritis Care & Research, 2026.

Chicago Style

Berg, MA van den, F Boel, MMA van Buuren, et al. 2026. “Hip Morphology–Based Osteoarthritis Risk Prediction Models: Development and External Validation Using Individual Participant Data From the World COACH Consortium.” Arthritis Care & Research.
Print