ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Inadequate Annotation and Its Impact on Pelvic Tilt Measurement in Clinical Practice.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Cortical Thickness Index Measurement in Pelvic Radiographs Using a Multi-Stage Deep Learning Framework.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of twelve-layer concentric object (TLCO) and Line segmentations methods to determine the renal corticomedullary sodium gradient (CMSG) with a 3 T MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating Alternative Registration Planes in Imageless, Computer-Assisted Navigation Systems for Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical benchmark dataset for AI accuracy analysis: quantifying radiographic annotation of pelvic tilt.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Article
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
backgroundAccurate pre-surgical templating of the pelvic tilt (PT) angle is essential for hip and spine surgeries, yet the reliability of PT annotations is often compromised by human error, inherent subjectivity, and variations in radiographic quality. This study aims to identify challenges leading to inadequate annotations at a landmark dimension and evaluating their impact on PT.
methodsWe retrospectively collected 115 consecutive sagittal radiographs for the measurement of PT based on two definitions: the anterior pelvic plane and a line connecting the femoral head's centre to the sacral plate's midpoint. Five annotators engaged in the measurement, followed by a secondary review to assess the adequacy of the annotations across all the annotators.
resultsThe outcomes indicated that over 60% images had at least one landmark considered inadequate by the majority of the reviewers, with poor image quality, outliers, and unrecognized anomalies being the primary causes. Such inadequacies led to discrepancies in the PT measurements, ranging from -2° to 2°.
conclusionThis study highlights that landmarks annotated from clear anatomical references were more reliable than those estimated. It also underscores the prevalence of suboptimal annotations in PT measurements, which extends beyond the scope of traditional statistical analysis and could result in significant deviations in individual cases, potentially impacting clinical outcomes.
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.