ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Are semi-automated software program designed for adults accurate for the identification of vertebral fractures in children?
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Triage and workflow optimization with artificial intelligence in pediatric imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- The current state of artificial intelligence research in pediatric radiology and recommendations for the future: a scoping review.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Performance of adult-trained artificial intelligence models in paediatric imaging-a scoping review.European radiology · 2026Article
- Reliability of semi-automated spinal measurement software.Spine deformity · 2024Article
- Machine Learning and Deep Learning in Spinal Injury: A Narrative Review of Algorithms in Diagnosis and Prognosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Current and emerging artificial intelligence applications for pediatric musculoskeletal radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2022Review
- The current and future roles of artificial intelligence in pediatric radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2022Review
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence approved for adults for the interpretation of pediatric chest radiographs.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence in paediatric radiology: international survey of health care professionals' opinions.Pediatric radiology · 2022Article
- [Artificial intelligence in image evaluation and diagnosis].Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Kinderheilkunde · 2021Review
- Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone densitometry in pediatrics: a practical review and update.Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
- Artificial intelligence in paediatric radiology: Future opportunities.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether diagnostic accuracy of morphometric vertebral fracture (VF) diagnosis in children can be improved using AVERT™ (a 33-point semi-automated program developed for VF diagnosis in adults) compared with SpineAnalyzer™ (a 6-point program), which has previously been shown to be of insufficient accuracy. MATERIALS AND
methodsLateral spine radiographs (XR) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of 50 children and young people were analysed by two observers using two different programs (AVERT™ and SpineAnalyzer™). Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, false-negative (FN) and false-positive rates (FP)) was calculated by comparing with a previously established consensus arrived at by three experienced paediatric musculoskeletal radiologists, using a simplified algorithm-based qualitative scoring system. Observer agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa.
resultsFor XR, overall sensitivity, specificity, FP and FN rates using AVERT™ were 36%, 95%, 5% and 64% respectively and 26%, 98%, 2% and 75% respectively, using SpineAnalyzer™. For DXA, overall sensitivity, specificity, FP and FN rates using AVERT™ were 41%, 91%, 9% and 59% respectively and 31%, 96%, 4% and 69% respectively, using SpineAnalyzer. Reliability (kappa) ranged from 0.34 to 0.37 (95%CI, 0.26-0.46) for AVERT™ and from 0.26 to 0.31 (95%CI, 0.16-0.44) for SpineAnalyzer™. Inter- and intra-observer agreement ranged from 0.41 to 0.47 for AVERT™ and from 0.50 to 0.79 for SpineAnalyzer™.
conclusionAVERT™ has slightly higher accuracy but lower observer reliability for the representation of vertebral morphometry in children when compared with SpineAnalyzer™. However, neither software program is satisfactorily reliable for VF diagnosis in children. KEY POINTS: • SpineAnalyzer™ and AVERT™ have low diagnostic accuracy and observer agreement when compared to three paediatric radiologists' readings for the diagnosis of vertebral fractures (VF) in children. • Neither AVERT™ nor SpineAnalyzer™ is satisfactorily reliable for VF diagnosis in children. • Development of specific paediatric software and normative values (incorporating age-related physiological variation in children) is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.