ReviewBrain & spine2024
Sensitivity and specificity of machine learning and deep learning algorithms in the diagnosis of thoracolumbar injuries resulting in vertebral fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for fracture detection on computed tomography: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy in non-commercial and commercial solutions.Emergency radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of junior doctor plain trauma X-ray interpretation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Surgery: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.MedComm · 2025Review
- Advancements and emerging insights in thoracolumbar spine trauma.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Deep learning meets chest X-rays: a promising approach for predicting future compression fracture risk.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Clinicians encounter challenges in promptly diagnosing thoracolumbar injuries (TLIs) and fractures (VFs), motivating the exploration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) technologies to enhance diagnostic capabilities. Despite varying evidence, the noteworthy transformative potential of AI in healthcare, leveraging insights from daily healthcare data, persists. Research question: This review investigates the utilization of ML and DL in TLIs causing VFs. Materials and methods: Employing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) methodology, a systematic review was conducted in PubMed and Scopus databases, identifying 793 studies. Seventeen were included in the systematic review, and 11 in the meta-analysis. Variables considered encompassed publication years, geographical location, study design, total participants (14,524), gender distribution, ML or DL methods, specific pathology, diagnostic modality, test analysis variables, validation details, and key study conclusions. Meta-analysis assessed specificity, sensitivity, and conducted hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (HSROC) analysis. Results: Predominantly conducted in China (29.41%), the studies involved 14,524 participants. In the analysis, 11.76% (N = 2) focused on ML, while 88.24% (N = 15) were dedicated to deep DL. Meta-analysis revealed a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI = 0.86-0.95), consistent specificity of 0.90 (95% CI = 0.86-0.93), with a false positive rate of 0.097 (95% CI = 0.068-0.137). Conclusion: The study underscores consistent specificity and sensitivity estimates, affirming the diagnostic test's robustness. However, the broader context of ML applications in TLIs emphasizes the critical need for standardization in methodologies to enhance clinical utility.
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.