ReviewCureus2023
A Comprehensive Review on the Diagnosis of Knee Injury by Deep Learning-Based Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI deep learning models for assisted diagnosis of knee pathologies: a systematic review.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Diagnosis: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 50 Most Cited Studies.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2026Review
- A comparative analysis of sagittal, coronal, and axial magnetic resonance imaging planes in diagnosing anterior cruciate ligament and meniscal tears via a deep learning model: emphasizing the unexpected importance of the axial plane.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- MV2SwimNet: A lightweight transformer-based hybrid model for knee meniscus tears detection.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Deep Learning Models on Knee MRIs for the Diagnosis and Classification of Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The continual improvement in the field of medical diagnosis has led to the monopoly of using deep learning (DL)-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of knee injury related to meniscal injury, ligament injury including the cruciate ligaments, collateral ligaments and medial patella-femoral ligament, and cartilage injury. The present systematic review was done by PubMed and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), wherein we finalised 24 studies conducted on the accuracy of DL MRI studies for knee injury identification. The studies showed an accuracy of 72.5% to 100% indicating that DL MRI holds an equivalent performance as humans in decision-making and management of knee injuries. This further opens up future exploration for improving MRI-based diagnosis keeping in mind the limitations of verification bias and data imbalance in ground truth subjectivity.
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.