Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351457›Full record

SynthesisSkeletal radiology2022

Artificial intelligence in orthopedic implant model classification: a systematic review.

Mark Ren, Paul H Yi

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Skeletal radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Artificial Intelligence Applications in Musculoskeletal Imaging.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Mark RenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Paul H YiUniversity of Maryland Intelligent Imaging (UMII) Center, Department of Diagnostic Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. pyi@som.umaryland.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9433-8093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although artificial intelligence models have demonstrated high accuracy in identifying specific orthopedic implant models from imaging, which is an important and time-consuming task, the scope of prior works and performance of prior models have not been evaluated. We performed a systematic review to summarize the scope, methodology, and performance of artificial intelligence algorithms in classifying orthopedic implant models. We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to March 10, 2021, using search terms related to "artificial intelligence", "orthopedic", "implant", and "arthroplasty". Studies were assessed using a modified version of the methodologic index for non-randomized studies. Reported outcomes included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The search identified 2689 records, of which 11 were included in the final review. The number of implant models evaluated ranged from 2 to 27. Five studies reported overall AUC across all included models which ranged from 0.94 to 1.0. Overall accuracy values ranged from 0.804 to 1.0. One study compared AI model performance with that of three surgeons, reporting similar performance. There was a large degree of variation in methodology and reporting quality. Artificial intelligence algorithms have demonstrated strong performance in classifying orthopedic implant models from radiographs. Further research is needed to compare artificial intelligence alone and as an adjunct with human experts in implant identification. Future studies should aim to adhere to rigorous artificial intelligence development methods and thorough, transparent reporting of methods and results.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceOrthopedicsAlgorithmsHumansRadiographyROC CurveArthroplastyArtificial intelligenceDeep learningHardwareImplantMachine learningNeural networkOrthopedic surgeryRadiology

Identifiers

PMID34351457

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.