Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37892066›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Skeletal Fracture Detection with Deep Learning: A Comprehensive Review.

Zhihao Su, Afzan Adam, Mohammad Faidzul Nasrudin, Masri Ayob, Gauthamen Punganan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Revolutionizing diagnosis of pulmonaryFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Wrist Joint Injury Diagnosis.International journal of medical sciences · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Zhihao SuCenter for Artificial Intelligence Technology, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID 0009-0002-1238-3929
Afzan AdamCenter for Artificial Intelligence Technology, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-1116-1005
Mohammad Faidzul NasrudinCenter for Artificial Intelligence Technology, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-2003-8853
Masri AyobCenter for Artificial Intelligence Technology, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-7921
Gauthamen PungananDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, Ipoh 30450, Perak, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning models have shown great promise in diagnosing skeletal fractures from X-ray images. However, challenges remain that hinder progress in this field. Firstly, a lack of clear definitions for recognition, classification, detection, and localization tasks hampers the consistent development and comparison of methodologies. The existing reviews often lack technical depth or have limited scope. Additionally, the absence of explainable facilities undermines the clinical application and expert confidence in results. To address these issues, this comprehensive review analyzes and evaluates 40 out of 337 recent papers identified in prestigious databases, including WOS, Scopus, and EI. The objectives of this review are threefold. Firstly, precise definitions are established for the bone fracture recognition, classification, detection, and localization tasks within deep learning. Secondly, each study is summarized based on key aspects such as the bones involved, research objectives, dataset sizes, methods employed, results obtained, and concluding remarks. This process distills the diverse approaches into a generalized processing framework or workflow. Moreover, this review identifies the crucial areas for future research in deep learning models for bone fracture diagnosis. These include enhancing the network interpretability, integrating multimodal clinical information, providing therapeutic schedule recommendations, and developing advanced visualization methods for clinical application. By addressing these challenges, deep learning models can be made more intelligent and specialized in this domain. In conclusion, this review fills the gap in precise task definitions within deep learning for bone fracture diagnosis and provides a comprehensive analysis of the recent research. The findings serve as a foundation for future advancements, enabling improved interpretability, multimodal integration, clinical decision support, and advanced visualization techniques.

Indexed as

bone fracture detectiondeep learning algorithmsSDG4X-ray images

Identifiers

PMID37892066
PMCPMC10606060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.