ArticleScientific reports2022
Artificial intelligence for distinguishment of hammering sound in total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing arthroplasty outcomes: the impact of artificial intelligence and robotic assistance.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Acoustic cues into a surgeon-assist physical AI for detecting bone penetration during spinal surgery.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- What is the clinical utility of acoustic and vibrational analyses in uncemented total hip arthroplasty?Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies have focused on hammering sound analysis during insertion of the cementless stem to decrease complications in total hip arthroplasty. However, the nature of the hammering sound is complex to analyse and varies widely owing to numerous possible variables. Therefore, we performed a preliminary feasibility study that aimed to clarify the accuracy of a prediction model using a machine learning algorithm to identify the final rasping hammering sound recorded during surgery. The hammering sound data of 29 primary THA without complication were assessed. The following definitions were adopted. Undersized rasping: all undersized stem rasping before the rasping of the final stem size, Final size rasping: rasping of the final stem size, Positive example: hammering sound during final size rasping, Negative example A: hammering sound during minimum size stem rasping, Negative example B: hammering sound during all undersized rasping. Three datasets for binary classification were set. Finally, binary classification was analysed in six models for the three datasets. The median values of the ROC-AUC in models A-F among each dataset were dataset a: 0.79, 0.76, 0.83, 0.90, 0.91, and 0.90, dataset B: 0.61, 0.53, 0.67, 0.69, 0.71, and 0.72, dataset C: 0.60, 0.48, 0.57, 0.63, 0.67, and 0.63, respectively. Our study demonstrated that artificial intelligence using machine learning was able to distinguish the final rasping hammering sound from the previous hammering sound with a relatively high degree of accuracy. Future studies are warranted to establish a prediction model using hammering sound analysis with machine learning to prevent complications in THA.
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.