ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Development and Validation of a Deep-Learning-Based Algorithm for Detecting and Classifying Metallic Implants in Abdominal and Spinal CT Topograms.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patch-Wise Approach with Vision Transformer for Detecting Implant Failure in Spinal Radiography.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Residual Oil-Based Contrast Medium Mimicking a Metallic Foreign Body After Cesarean Section: Diagnostic Value of AI-Assisted 3D CT Analysis and Prenatal MRI.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a deep-learning-based algorithm (DLA) that is designed to segment and classify metallic objects in topograms of abdominal and spinal CT.
methodsDLA training for implant segmentation and classification was based on a U-net-like architecture with 263 annotated hip implant topograms and 2127 annotated spine implant topograms. The trained DLA was validated with internal and external datasets. Two radiologists independently reviewed the external dataset consisting of 2178 abdomen anteroposterior (AP) topograms and 515 spine AP and lateral topograms, all collected in a consecutive manner. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated per pixel row and per patient. Pairwise intersection over union (IoU) was also calculated between the DLA and the two radiologists.
resultsThe performance parameters of the DLA were consistently >95% in internal validation per pixel row and per patient. DLA can save 27.4% of reconstruction time on average in patients with metallic implants compared to the existing iMAR. The sensitivity and specificity of the DLA during external validation were greater than 90% for the detection of spine implants on three different topograms and for the detection of hip implants on abdominal AP and spinal AP topograms. The IoU was greater than 0.9 between the DLA and the radiologists. However, the DLA training could not be performed for hip implants on spine lateral topograms.
conclusionsA prototype DLA to detect metallic implants of the spine and hip on abdominal and spinal CT topograms improves the scan workflow with good performance for both spine and hip implants.
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.