Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38680721›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Belgian Society of Radiology2024

Radiographic Detection of Post-Traumatic Bone Fractures: Contribution of Artificial Intelligence Software to the Analysis of Senior and Junior Radiologists.

Andrea Dell'Aria, Denis Tack, Najat Saddiki, Sonia Makdoud, Jean Alexiou, François-Xavier De Hemptinne, Ivan Berkenbaum, Carine Neugroschl, Nunzia Tacelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

9 authors.

Andrea Dell'AriaDepartment of Radiology, Hôpitaux Iris-Sud (HIS), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0314-2948
Denis TackDepartment of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier EpiCURA, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1509-1983
Najat SaddikiDepartment of Radiology, Hôpitaux Iris-Sud (HIS), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Sonia MakdoudDepartment of Radiology, Hôpitaux Iris-Sud (HIS), Université d'Alger 1- Faculté de Médecine d'Alger-Ziania, Algiers, Algeria.
Jean AlexiouDepartment of Radiology, Hôpitaux Iris-Sud (HIS), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
François-Xavier De HemptinneDepartment of Radiology, Hôpitaux Iris-Sud (HIS), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Ivan BerkenbaumDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpitaux Iris-Sud (HIS), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Carine NeugroschlDepartment of Radiology, Hôpitaux Iris-Sud (HIS), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0615-1470
Nunzia TacelliDepartment of Radiology, Hôpitaux Iris-Sud (HIS), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this study were: (a) to evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) software package (Boneview Trauma, Gleamer) for the detection of post-traumatic bone fractures in radiography as a standalone; (b) used by two radiologists (osteoarticular senior and junior); and (c) to determine to whom AI would be most helpful. Materials and Methods: Within 14 days of a trauma, 101 consecutive patients underwent radiographic examination of the upper or lower limbs. The definite diagnosis for identifying fractures was: (a) radio-clinical consensus between the radiologist on-call who analyzed the images and the orthopedist (Group 1); (b) Cone Beam computed tomography (CBCT) exploration of the area of interest, in case of doubts or absence of consensus (Group 2). Independently of this diagnosis for both groups, the radiographic images were separately analyzed by two radiologists (osteoarticular senior: SR; junior: JR) prior without, and thereafter with the results of AI. Results: AI performed better than the radiologists in detecting common fractures (Group 1), but not subtle fractures (Group 2). In association with AI, both radiologists increased their overall performances in both groups, whereas this increase was significantly higher for the JR ( Conclusion: AI is reliable for common radiographic fracture identification and is a useful learning tool for radiologists in training. However, the software's overall performance does not exceed that of an osteoarticular senior radiologist, particularly in case of subtle lesions.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCBCTdiagnosisfracturemusculoskeletal

Identifiers

PMID38680721
PMCPMC11049681

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.