Purpose: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a heterogeneous condition characterized by changes in a variety of joint tissues and driven by a number of different potential mechanisms. To date, most clinical trials of disease modifying drugs have treated all KOA as the same disease, based primarily on radiographic features, and have failed to improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore machine learning approaches to phenotyping in KOA in order to better define the progressor phenotype that may be more responsive to a disease modifying intervention. Methods: We focused on identifying differences between those knees that progressed by both radiographic (loss of medial joint space width) and pain (using the WOMAC pain scale) criteria (“progressors”) and those that did not progress by either of these (“non-progressors”), as defined by the publicly available FNIH OA Biomarkers Consortium dataset of 600 individuals with 76 demographic, imaging (quantitative and semi-quantitative MRI), and biochemical variables. First, problematic variables and observations were removed, leaving 597 observations and 73 variables. The data were transformed to reduce skewness and standardized to address differences in scale. Direction-projection-permutation (DiProPerm) hypothesis testing was used to test equality of distributions (by z-score) in the Distance-Weighted Discrimination (DWD) direction as quantified by the mean difference, using 100 permutations. Loadings on the DWD direction demonstrate the relative contribution of each variable to the class differences (e.g., progressors compared with non-progressors). In addition, we explored k-means clustering to partition the observations into 2 subgroups (additional subgroups were not supported by various statistical indices). Given multiple comparisons, a z-score of at least 3 (P value∼0.001) was considered statistically significant. Results: When considering all observations and all variables simultaneously, the progressors and non-progressors clearly separated with a z-score of 10.10 (Table 1).Table 1Z-scores derived from the DiProPerm test for the difference between progressors and non-progressors.All variablesDemographicQuantitative MRISemi-Quant MRIBiochemicalDiProPerm z-scoresAll observations10.101.4711.6210.282.432 clusters16.191.496.515.722.0124.771.394.735.780.97z-scores >3 are statistically significant at P<0.001, in bold. Open table in a new tab z-scores >3 are statistically significant at P<0.001, in bold. No statistical improvement was seen with partitioning the observations into 2 clusters, although some of these clusters did have significant z-scores. We were also able to study the 4 groups of variable data separately, finding higher z-scores for the MRI variables (11.62 for quantitative and 10.28 for semi-quantitative), with lower scores for demographic and biochemical markers. Again, lesser z-scores were seen for the 2 clusters compared with using all observations. Finally, we were interested in the relative contributions of each variable to the overall difference between progressors and non-progressors (Fig. 1), where the DWD loadings were represented in a bar plot for the 40 variables with the greatest contribution. The greatest positive contribution was seen for WOMAC pain (which is part of the progression construct), lateral meniscal extrusion, and serum PIIANP; the largest negative contributions were from the number of subregions with bone marrow lesions, the number of locations with any osteophyte, and urine CTX-II. Conclusions: These innovative methods provide a way to assess numerous variables of different types and scalings simultaneously in relation to KOA progression as shown here, or for assessing any other outcome of interest. Such methodology could identify both known and novel KOA phenotypes, potentially improving patient selection for specific interventions and providing insight into pathophysiology in this heterogeneous condition.