ArticleDigital health
The ensemble artificial intelligence (AI) method: Detection of hip fractures in AP pelvis plain radiographs by majority voting using a multi-center dataset.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Approach in Hip Prosthesis Identification and Addressing Radiographic Outcome Measures.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in fracture detection on radiographs: a literature review.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- CORR Insights®: Is Quantitative Radiographic Measurement of Acetabular Version Reliable in Anteverted and Retroverted Hips?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence algorithm for the diagnosis of hip fracture on plain radiography with decision-making physicians: a validation study.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This article was undertaken to explore the potential of AI in enhancing the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in identifying hip fractures using X-ray radiographs. In the study, we trained three distinct deep learning models, and we utilized majority voting to evaluate their outcomes, aiming to yield the most reliable and precise diagnoses of hip fractures from X-ray radiographs. Methods: An initial study was conducted of 10,849 AP pelvis X-rays obtained from five hospitals affiliated with Başkent University. Two expert orthopedic surgeons initially labeled 2,291 radiographs as fractures and 8,558 as non-fractures. The algorithm was trained on 6,943 (64%) radiographs, validated on 1,736 (16%) radiographs, and tested on 2,170 (20%) radiographs, ensuring an even distribution of fracture presence, age, and gender. We employed three advanced deep learning architectures, Xception (Model A), EfficientNet (Model B), and NfNet (Model C), with a final decision aggregated through a majority voting technique (Model D). Results: For each model, we achieved the following metrics:For Model A: F1 Score 0.895, Accuracy 0.956, Specificity 0.973, Sensitivity 0.893.For Model B: F1 Score 0.900, Accuracy 0.960, Specificity 0.991, Sensitivity 0.845.For Model C: F1 Score 0.919, Accuracy 0.966, Specificity 0.984, Sensitivity 0.899.For Model D: F1 Score 0.929, Accuracy 0.971, Specificity 0.991, Sensitivity 0.897.We concluded that Model D (majority voting) achieved the best results in terms of the F1 score, accuracy, and specificity values. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that the results obtained by aggregating the decisions of multiple models through voting, rather than relying solely on the decision of a single algorithm, are more consistent. The practical application of these algorithms will be difficult due to ethical, legal, and confidentiality issues, despite the theoretical success achieved. Developing successful algorithms and methodologies should not be viewed as the ultimate goal; it is important to understand how these algorithms will be used in real-life situations. In order to achieve more consistent results, feedback from clinical practice will be helpful.
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.