Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35721007›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics

Application of deep learning algorithm in automated identification of knee arthroplasty implants from plain radiographs using transfer learning models: Are algorithms better than humans?

Anjali Tiwari, Amit Kumar Yadav, Vaibhav Bagaria

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anjali TiwariResearch Analyst, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sir H N Reliance Foundation Hospital, Girgaum, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Amit Kumar YadavClinical Assistant, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sir H N Reliance Foundation Hospital, Girgaum, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Vaibhav BagariaConsultant, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sir H N Reliance Foundation Hospital, Girgaum, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sir H.N. Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: In preoperative planning of a revision knee arthroplasty, it can be challenging to identify an implant manufacturer type from a primary knee arthroplasty due to the inability to identify the implants in time. It has been shown that deep learning improves diagnosis with each iteration in the medical field. The problem of identifying the manufacturer and model of knee arthroplasty prostheses has been solved using automated deep learning models. In our study, we have developed deep learning algorithm to identify knee arthroplasty, implant manufacturer type. The current study also aimed to determine the best of the seven machine learning-based model for detecting knee implants according to different manufacturing types from plain radiographs based on their efficacy and accuracy. Material and methods: Plain radiographs of 521 knee arthroplasty implants of six different manufacturers were taken from the anteroposterior and lateral perspectives to train, validate, and test the implants. Among 521 radiographs images, 70% were used in the initial training process, 10% in testing the models, and 20% in determining the accuracy and validity of the models. The study explored the transfer learning technique to develop models. The advantage of transfer learning for knee implant detection is that if existing models are already trained on a large enough and general dataset, these models can be used to fulfil the study's objectives. In addition, to establish the efficacy of these knee implants, two orthopaedic consultants specialised in arthroplasty independently identified these manufacturers types. Results: The performance and network of the model resulted in high accuracy for identifying knee implant types out of seven models, five of which had more than 90% accuracy. After 20 training epochs on all seven models, based on the validation dataset, VGG-16 produces the best results with an accuracy of 95.5% and a precision of 98.4%. However, the study asserted that machine learning outperformed two human expert, who achieved an average accuracy of 78%. Conclusion: This study may lead to the development of an automated implant identification tool that could improve the accuracy and speed of decision made by healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

ImplantKnee arthroplastyMachine learningPlain radiographsTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID35721007
PMCPMC9200892
OpenAlexW4281559685

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.