ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Application of deep learning algorithms in classification and localization of implant cutout for the postoperative hip.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bibliometric analysis of the application of artificial intelligence in orthopedic imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to explore the feasibility of employing convolutional neural networks for detecting and localizing implant cutouts on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe research involves the development of two Deep Learning models. Initially, a model was created for image-level classification of implant cutouts using 40191 pelvic radiographs obtained from a single institution. The radiographs were partitioned into training, validation, and hold-out test datasets in a 6/2/2 ratio. Performance metrics including the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated using the test dataset. Additionally, a second object detection model was trained to localize implant cutouts within the same dataset. Bounding box visualizations were generated on images predicted as cutout-positive by the classification model in the test dataset, serving as an adjunct for assessing algorithm validity.
resultsThe classification model had an accuracy of 99.7%, sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 99.8%, AUROC of 0.998 (95% CI: 0.996, 0.999) and AUPRC of 0.774 (95% CI: 0.646, 0.880). From the pelvic radiographs predicted as cutout-positive, the object detection model could achieve 95.5% localization accuracy on true positive images, but falsely generated 14 results from the 15 false-positive predictions.
conclusionThe classification model showed fair accuracy for detection of implant cutouts, while the object detection model effectively localized cutout. This serves as proof of concept of using a deep learning-based approach for classification and localization of implant cutouts from pelvic radiographs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38771507What 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.