Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35204625›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Knee Injury Detection Using Deep Learning on MRI Studies: A Systematic Review.

Athanasios Siouras, Serafeim Moustakidis, Archontis Giannakidis, Georgios Chalatsis, Ioannis Liampas, Marianna Vlychou, Michael Hantes, Sotiris Tasoulis, Dimitrios Tsaopoulos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Achieving high accuracy in meniscus tear detection using advanced deep learning models with a relatively small data set.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Athanasios SiourasDepartment of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, School of Science, University of Thessaly, 35131 Lamia, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-7654-0543
Serafeim MoustakidisAIDEAS OÜ, 10117 Tallinn, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0002-1090-2177
Archontis GiannakidisSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG11 8NS, UK.
Georgios ChalatsisDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, 41500 Larissa, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-6640-505X
Ioannis LiampasDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, University Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, Mezourlo Hill, 41500 Larissa, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-2958-5220
Marianna VlychouDepartment of Radiology, School of Health Sciences, University Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, Mezourlo, 41500 Larissa, Greece.
Michael HantesDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, 41500 Larissa, Greece.
Sotiris TasoulisDepartment of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, School of Science, University of Thessaly, 35131 Lamia, Greece.
Dimitrios TsaopoulosCentre for Research and Technology Hellas, 38333 Volos, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-7355-0511

Funding

General Secretariat for Research and Technology T1EDK-04234
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The improved treatment of knee injuries critically relies on having an accurate and cost-effective detection. In recent years, deep-learning-based approaches have monopolized knee injury detection in MRI studies. The aim of this paper is to present the findings of a systematic literature review of knee (anterior cruciate ligament, meniscus, and cartilage) injury detection papers using deep learning. The systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA guidelines on several databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Appropriate metrics were chosen to interpret the results. The prediction accuracy of the deep-learning models for the identification of knee injuries ranged from 72.5-100%. Deep learning has the potential to act at par with human-level performance in decision-making tasks related to the MRI-based diagnosis of knee injuries. The limitations of the present deep-learning approaches include data imbalance, model generalizability across different centers, verification bias, lack of related classification studies with more than two classes, and ground-truth subjectivity. There are several possible avenues of further exploration of deep learning for improving MRI-based knee injury diagnosis. Explainability and lightweightness of the deployed deep-learning systems are expected to become crucial enablers for their widespread use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

ACLdeep learningknee injurymachine learningmeniscus

Identifiers

PMID35204625
PMCPMC8871256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.