ArticlePediatric radiology2023
Dating birth-related clavicular fractures: pediatric radiologists versus artificial intelligence.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in the interpretation of upper extremity trauma radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFracture dating from skeletal surveys is crucial in the diagnosis and investigation of infant abuse. However, this task is challenging because of the subjective nature of the radiologic interpretation and the lack of ground truth. Researchers have used birth-related clavicle fractures as a surrogate to study the radiographic pattern of healing; however, they did not elucidate the accuracy performance of the radiologists in dating fractures.
objectiveTo determine the accuracy of radiologists in dating birth-related clavicle fractures and compare their performance to that achieved by computer algorithm. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used a previously assembled birth-related clavicle fracture database consisting of 416 anteroposterior clavicle radiographs as the study cohort. The average and standard deviation of the fracture age within this database were 24 days and 18 days, respectively. Three blinded radiologists independently estimated the ages of the clavicle fractures depicted in the radiographs within the database. We compared these estimation results to those made by a recently published deep-learning (DL) model conducted with the identical infant cohort. We calculated standard error metrics to compare the accuracy performances of the radiologists and the computer model.
resultsThe intra- and inter-reader agreements of the fracture age estimates by the radiologists were moderate to good. The radiologists estimated the fracture ages with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 6.1-7.1 days, and standard deviation of the absolute error of 6.3-8.3 days. The accuracy performances of the three radiologists were not significantly different from one another. In comparison, the DL model estimated the age of clavicle fractures with an MAE of 4.2 days, significantly lower than all of the radiologists (P < 0.001).
conclusionThree experienced pediatric radiologists dated clavicular fractures with moderate-good intra- and inter-reader agreements. The correlations between the radiologists' estimates and the ground truth were moderate to good. The fracture ages assigned by the DL model showed superior correlation with the ground truth compared to radiologists' dating estimates.
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.