Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31045948›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in rheumatology2019

Artificial intelligence, osteoporosis and fragility fractures.

Uran Ferizi, Stephen Honig, Gregory Chang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Machine learning is changing osteoporosis detection: an integrative review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Uran FeriziDepartment of Radiology.
Stephen HonigDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, USA.
Gregory ChangDepartment of Radiology.

Funding

MRI of Proximal Femur Microarchitecture as a Biomarker of Bone QualityR01AR066008 · NIAMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI CHANG, GREGORY · 2014 to 2018
$2.8M
MRI of Proximal Femur Bone Quality for Monitoring Short-Term Response to Osteoporosis TherapyR01AR073851 · NIAMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI CHANG, GREGORY · 2019 to 2023
$2.8M
Translation of Hip Microarchitectural Assessment Technology to the Clinic to Diagnose Glucocorticoid-Induced OsteoporosisR01AR070131 · NIAMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI CHANG, GREGORY · 2016 to 2020
$2.7M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR066008NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR070131NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR073851
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewArtificial intelligence tools have found new applications in medical diagnosis. These tools have the potential to capture underlying trends and patterns, otherwise impossible with previous modeling capabilities. Machine learning and deep learning models have found a role in osteoporosis, both to model the risk of fragility fracture, and to help with the identification and segmentation of images. RECENT

findingsHere we survey the latest research in the artificial intelligence application to the prediction of osteoporosis that has been published between January 2017 and March 2019. Around half of the articles that are covered here predict (by classification or regression) an indicator of osteoporosis, such as bone mass or fragility fractures; the other half of studies use tools for automatic segmentation of the images of patients with or at risk of osteoporosis. The data for these studies include diverse signal sources: acoustics, MRI, CT, and of course, X-rays. SUMMARY: New methods for automatic image segmentation, and prediction of fracture risk show promising clinical value. Though these recent developments have had a successful initial application to osteoporosis research, their development is still under improvement, such as accounting for positive/negative class bias. We urge care when reporting accuracy metrics, and when comparing such metrics between different studies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceFrailtyBone DensityHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingOsteoporotic FracturesTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID31045948
PMCPMC7282383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.