ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2022
Automatic Localization and Brand Detection of Cervical Spine Hardware on Radiographs Using Weakly Supervised Machine Learning.
Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patch-Wise Approach with Vision Transformer for Detecting Implant Failure in Spinal Radiography.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Fully automated pedicle screw manufacturer identification in plain radiograph with deep learning methods.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Initial study on an expert system for spine diseases screening using inertial measurement unit.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Automatic Brand Identification of Orthopedic Implants from Radiographs: Ready for the Next Step?Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop an end-to-end pipeline to localize and identify cervical spine hardware brands on routine cervical spine radiographs. Materials and Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, patients who received cervical spine implants between 2014 and 2018 were identified. Information on the implant model was retrieved from the surgical notes. The dataset was filtered for implants present in at least three patients, which yielded five anterior and five posterior hardware models for classification. Images for training were manually annotated with bounding boxes for anterior and posterior hardware. An object detection model was trained and implemented to localize hardware on the remaining images. An image classification model was then trained to differentiate between five anterior and five posterior hardware models. Model performance was evaluated on a holdout test set with 1000 iterations of bootstrapping. Results: A total of 984 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 12 [standard deviation]; 525 women) were included for model training, validation, and testing. The hardware localization model achieved an intersection over union of 86.8% and an F1 score of 94.9%. For brand classification, an F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity of 98.7% ± 0.5, 98.7% ± 0.5, and 99.2% ± 0.3, respectively, were attained for anterior hardware, with values of 93.5% ± 2.0, 92.6% ± 2.0, and 96.1% ± 2.0, respectively, attained for posterior hardware. Conclusion: The developed pipeline was able to accurately localize and classify brands of hardware implants using a weakly supervised learning framework.
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.