Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29378578›Full record

ReviewBiomedical engineering online2018

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

Agnaldo S Cruz, Hertz C Lins, Ricardo V A Medeiros, José M F Filho, Sandro G da Silva

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedical engineering online, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Application of artificial intelligence in diagnosis of osteoporosis using medical images: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Osteoporosis in 10 years time: a glimpse into the future of osteoporosis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Agnaldo S CruzCentro de Tecnologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte UFRN, Av. Salgado Filho, Natal, Brazil. agnaldo@ct.ufrn.br.
Hertz C LinsLaboratory of Technological Innovation in Healthcare, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.
Ricardo V A MedeirosLaboratory of Technological Innovation in Healthcare, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.
José M F FilhoLaboratory of Technological Innovation in Healthcare, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil.
Sandro G da SilvaCentro de Tecnologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte UFRN, Av. Salgado Filho, Natal, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe goal of this paper is to present a critical review on the main systems that use artificial intelligence to identify groups at risk for osteoporosis or fractures. The systems considered for this study were those that fulfilled the following requirements: range of coverage in diagnosis, low cost and capability to identify more significant somatic factors.

methodsA bibliographic research was done in the databases, PubMed, IEEExplorer Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (LILACS), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct searching the terms "Neural Network", "Osteoporosis Machine Learning" and "Osteoporosis Neural Network". Studies with titles not directly related to the research topic and older data that reported repeated strategies were excluded. The search was carried out with the descriptors in German, Spanish, French, Italian, Mandarin, Portuguese and English; but only studies written in English were found to meet the established criteria. Articles covering the period 2000-2017 were selected; however, articles prior to this period with great relevance were included in this study. DISCUSSION: Based on the collected research, it was identified that there are several methods in the use of artificial intelligence to help the screening of risk groups of osteoporosis or fractures. However, such systems were limited to a specific ethnic group, gender or age. For future research, new challenges are presented.

conclusionsIt is necessary to develop research with the unification of different databases and grouping of the various attributes and clinical factors, in order to reach a greater comprehensiveness in the identification of risk groups of osteoporosis. For this purpose, the use of any predictive tool should be performed in different populations with greater participation of male patients and inclusion of a larger age range for the ones involved. The biggest challenge is to deal with all the data complexity generated by this unification, developing evidence-based standards for the evaluation of the most significant risk factors.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHumansOsteoporosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsArtificial intelligenceComputer-aided detection systemFractureNeural networkOsteoporosis

Identifiers

PMID29378578
PMCPMC5789692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.