ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2023
Assessment of a combined musculoskeletal and chest deep learning-based detection solution in an emergency setting.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in commercial fracture detection products: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Benchmarking Gemini 1.5 Pro in Pediatric Emergency Radiology: Sensitivity Gap and Physiological Bias in the Immature Skeleton.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of hip fractures: an analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Independent bone-level diagnostic accuracy study of an AI tool for detecting appendicular skeletal fractures on radiographs.European radiology · 2026Article
- External validation of an artificial intelligence tool for fracture detection in children with osteogenesis imperfecta: a multireader study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Real-life benefit of artificial intelligence-based fracture detection in a pediatric emergency department.European radiology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Orthopedics: A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in advancing immunology.Immunologic research · 2025Review
- A review on artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of fractures in facial trauma imaging.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: Triage and diagnostic deep learning-based support solutions have started to take hold in everyday emergency radiology practice with the hope of alleviating workflows. Although previous works had proven that artificial intelligence (AI) may increase radiologist and/or emergency physician reading performances, they were restricted to finding, bodypart and/or age subgroups, without evaluating a routine emergency workflow composed of chest and musculoskeletal adult and pediatric cases. We aimed at evaluating a multiple musculoskeletal and chest radiographic findings deep learning-based commercial solution on an adult and pediatric emergency workflow, focusing on discrepancies between emergency and radiology physicians. Material and methods: This retrospective, monocentric and observational study included 1772 patients who underwent an emergency radiograph between July and October 2020, excluding spine, skull and plain abdomen procedures. Emergency and radiology reports, obtained without AI as part of the clinical workflow, were collected and discordant cases were reviewed to obtain the radiology reference standard. Case-level AI outputs and emergency reports were compared to the reference standard. DeLong and Wald tests were used to compare ROC-AUC and Sensitivity/Specificity, respectively. Results: Results showed an overall AI ROC-AUC of 0.954 with no difference across age or body part subgroups. Real-life emergency physicians' sensitivity was 93.7 %, not significantly different to the AI model ( Conclusion: This study highlighted that multiple findings AI solution for emergency radiographs is efficient and complementary to emergency physicians, and could help reduce misdiagnosis in the absence of immediate radiological expertize.
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.