ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Commercially-available AI algorithm improves radiologists' sensitivity for wrist and hand fracture detection on X-ray, compared to a CT-based ground truth.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Enhanced fracture detection on radiographs with AI assistance for clinicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in commercial fracture detection products: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Efficacy as a Function of Trainee Interpreter Proficiency: Lessons from a Randomized Controlled Trial.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Trial
- Interdisciplinary consensus statements on imaging of scaphoid fractures.European radiology · 2026Article
- Independent bone-level diagnostic accuracy study of an AI tool for detecting appendicular skeletal fractures on radiographs.European radiology · 2026Article
- The AI implementation gap in trauma radiography: standalone versus discretionary AI-integrated fracture detection.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Sports Medicine: A Decision-Centered Framework for the Future Sports Physician.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Fracture Detection in Orthopedic and Trauma Imaging: Where It Works, Where It Fails, and Principles for Safe Clinical Deployment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Automated AI fracture detection in initial presentation pediatric wrist X-rays: effects and benefits of adding follow-up examinations.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- AI-driven Technologies for Wrist Fracture Prediction: A Narrative Review of Emerging Approaches.Journal of wrist surgery · 2025Article
- Impact of test set composition on AI performance in pediatric wrist fracture detection in X-rays.European radiology · 2025Article
- Comparative accuracy of two commercial AI algorithms for musculoskeletal trauma detection in emergency radiographs.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in fracture detection on radiographs: a literature review.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- A Data Ingestion Procedure towards a Medical Images Repository.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlgorithms for fracture detection are spreading in clinical practice, but the use of X-ray-only ground truth can induce bias in their evaluation. This study assessed radiologists' performances to detect wrist and hand fractures on radiographs, using a commercially-available algorithm, compared to a computerized tomography (CT) ground truth.
methodsPost-traumatic hand and wrist CT and concomitant X-ray examinations were retrospectively gathered. Radiographs were labeled based on CT findings. The dataset was composed of 296 consecutive cases: 118 normal (39.9%), 178 pathological (60.1%) with a total of 267 fractures visible in CT. Twenty-three radiologists with various levels of experience reviewed all radiographs without AI, then using it, blinded towards CT results.
resultsUsing AI improved radiologists' sensitivity (Se, 0.658 to 0.703, p < 0.0001) and negative predictive value (NPV, 0.585 to 0.618, p < 0.0001), without affecting their specificity (Sp, 0.885 vs 0.891, p = 0.91) or positive predictive value (PPV, 0.887 vs 0.899, p = 0.08). On the radiographic dataset, based on the CT ground truth, stand-alone AI performances were 0.771 (Se), 0.898 (Sp), 0.684 (NPV), 0.915 (PPV), and 0.764 (AUROC) which were lower than previously reported, suggesting a potential underestimation of the number of missed fractures in the AI literature.
conclusionsAI enabled radiologists to improve their sensitivity and negative predictive value for wrist and hand fracture detection on radiographs, without affecting their specificity or positive predictive value, compared to a CT-based ground truth. Using CT as gold standard for X-ray labels is innovative, leading to algorithm performance poorer than reported elsewhere, but probably closer to clinical reality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Using an AI algorithm significantly improved radiologists' sensitivity and negative predictive value in detecting wrist and hand fractures on radiographs, with ground truth labels based on CT findings. KEY POINTS: • Using CT as a ground truth for labeling X-rays is new in AI literature, and led to algorithm performance significantly poorer than reported elsewhere (AUROC: 0.764), but probably closer to clinical reality. • AI enabled radiologists to significantly improve their sensitivity (+ 4.5%) and negative predictive value (+ 3.3%) for the detection of wrist and hand fractures on X-rays. • There was no significant change in terms of specificity or positive predictive value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37919408What 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.