Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34824729›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2021

Knee Implant Identification by Fine-Tuning Deep Learning Models.

Sukkrit Sharma, Vineet Batta, Malathy Chidambaranathan, Prabhakaran Mathialagan, Gayathri Mani, M Kiruthika, Barun Datta, Srinath Kamineni, Guruva Reddy, Suhas Masilamani and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

12 authors.

Sukkrit SharmaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Computing, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Potheri, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu 603203 India.
Vineet BattaDepartment of Orthopaedic, Luton and Dunstable University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Luton, UK.
Malathy ChidambaranathanDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Computing, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Potheri, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu 603203 India.
Prabhakaran MathialaganDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Computing, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Potheri, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu 603203 India.
Gayathri ManiDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Computing, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Potheri, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu 603203 India.
M KiruthikaDepartment of Orthopaedic, Luton and Dunstable University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Luton, UK.
Barun DattaArmy Research and Referral, New Delhi, India.
Srinath KamineniUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Guruva ReddyLiverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Suhas MasilamaniMontifiore Children Health Center, Bronx, USA.
Sandeep VijayanKasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Udupi, Karnataka India.
Derek F AmanatullahDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentification of implant model from primary knee arthroplasty in pre-op planning of revision surgery is a challenging task with added delay. The direct impact of this inability to identify the implants in time leads to the increase in complexity in surgery. Deep learning in the medical field for diagnosis has shown promising results in getting better with every iteration. This study aims to find an optimal solution for the problem of identification of make and model of knee arthroplasty prosthesis using automated deep learning models.

methodsDeep learning algorithms were used to classify knee arthroplasty implant models. The training, validation and test comprised of 1078 radiographs with a total of 6 knee arthroplasty implant models with anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral views. The performance of the model was calculated using accuracy, sensitivity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), which were compared against multiple models trained for comparative in-depth analysis with saliency maps for visualization.

resultsAfter training for a total of 30 epochs on all 6 models, the model performing the best obtained an accuracy of 96.38%, the sensitivity of 97.2% and AUC of 0.985 on an external testing dataset consisting of 162 radiographs. The best performing model correctly and uniquely identified the implants which could be visualized using saliency maps.

conclusionDeep learning models can be used to differentiate between 6 knee arthroplasty implant models. Saliency maps give us a better understanding of which regions the model is focusing on while predicting the results.

Indexed as

Deep learningImage processingImplant identificationKnee implantRevision arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID34824729
PMCPMC8586384

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.