Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32335786›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2020

Precise proximal femur fracture classification for interactive training and surgical planning.

Amelia Jiménez-Sánchez, Anees Kazi, Shadi Albarqouni, Chlodwig Kirchhoff, Peter Biberthaler, Nassir Navab, Sonja Kirchhoff, Diana Mateus

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Automatic detection and classification of peri-prosthetic femur fracture.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022
    Article
  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

8 authors.

Amelia Jiménez-SánchezBCN MedTech, DTIC, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. amelia.jimenez@upf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7870-0603
Anees KaziComputer Aided Medical Procedures, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Shadi AlbarqouniComputer Aided Medical Procedures, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Chlodwig KirchhoffDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Peter BiberthalerDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Nassir NavabComputer Aided Medical Procedures, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Sonja KirchhoffDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Diana MateusLS2N, UMR CNRS 6004, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, Nantes, France.

Funding

LCF/BQ/IN17/11620013 713673
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDemonstrate the feasibility of a fully automatic computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tool, based on deep learning, that localizes and classifies proximal femur fractures on X-ray images according to the AO classification. The proposed framework aims to improve patient treatment planning and provide support for the training of trauma surgeon residents. MATERIAL AND

methodsA database of 1347 clinical radiographic studies was collected. Radiologists and trauma surgeons annotated all fractures with bounding boxes and provided a classification according to the AO standard. In all experiments, the dataset was split patient-wise in three with the ratio 70%:10%:20% to build the training, validation and test sets, respectively. ResNet-50 and AlexNet architectures were implemented as deep learning classification and localization models, respectively. Accuracy, precision, recall and [Formula: see text]-score were reported as classification metrics. Retrieval of similar cases was evaluated in terms of precision and recall.

resultsThe proposed CAD tool for the classification of radiographs into types "A," "B" and "not-fractured" reaches a [Formula: see text]-score of 87% and AUC of 0.95. When classifying fractures versus not-fractured cases it improves up to 94% and 0.98. Prior localization of the fracture results in an improvement with respect to full-image classification. In total, 100% of the predicted centers of the region of interest are contained in the manually provided bounding boxes. The system retrieves on average 9 relevant images (from the same class) out of 10 cases.

conclusionOur CAD scheme localizes, detects and further classifies proximal femur fractures achieving results comparable to expert-level and state-of-the-art performance. Our auxiliary localization model was highly accurate predicting the region of interest in the radiograph. We further investigated several strategies of verification for its adoption into the daily clinical routine. A sensitivity analysis of the size of the ROI and image retrieval as a clinical use case were presented.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedDatabases, FactualDeep LearningFemoral FracturesHumansRadiographyBone fractureComputer-aided diagnosisDeep learningInteractive trainingRadiologySurgical planning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.