Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39033340›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

Artificial intelligence-based assessment of leg axis parameters shows excellent agreement with human raters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mikhail Salzmann, Hakam Hassan Tarek, Robert Prill, Roland Becker, Andreas G Schreyer, Robert Hable, Marko Ostojic, Nikolai Ramadanov

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Convolutional Neural Networks in Radiology: Principles, Clinical Applications, and a Practical Framework for Radiologists.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Is orthopaedics entering the age of generative AI?-A narrative review of current applications challenges and future directions.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

8 authors.

Mikhail SalzmannCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0957-2285
Hakam Hassan TarekCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Robert PrillCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Roland BeckerCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Andreas G SchreyerInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Robert HableFaculty of Applied Computer Science, Deggendorf Institute of Technology, Deggendorf, Germany.
Marko OstojicDepartment of Orthopedics, University Hospital Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Nikolai RamadanovCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the reliability and applicability of artificial intelligence (AI)-based analysis of leg axis parameters. We hypothesized that AI-based leg axis measurements would be less time-consuming and as accurate as those performed by human raters.

methodsThe study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). PubMed, Epistemonikos, and Web of Science were searched up to 24 February 2024, using a BOOLEAN search strategy. Titles and abstracts of identified records were screened through a stepwise process. Data extraction and quality assessment of the included papers were followed by a frequentist meta-analysis employing a common effect/random effects model with inverse variance and the Sidik-Jonkman heterogeneity estimator.

resultsA total of 13 studies encompassing 3192 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All studies compared AI-based leg axis measurements on long-leg radiographs (LLR) with those performed by human raters. The parameters hip knee ankle angle (HKA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), and joint-line convergence angle (JLCA) showed excellent agreement between AI and human raters. The AI system was approximately 3 min faster in reading standing long-leg anteroposterior radiographs (LLRs) compared with human raters.

conclusionAI-based assessment of leg axis parameters is an efficient, accurate, and time-saving procedure. The quality of AI-based assessment of the investigated parameters does not appear to be affected by the presence of implants or pathological conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceFemurHip JointHumansKnee JointLegRadiographyReproducibility of ResultsTibiaAIalignment measurementartificial intelligenceautomated measurementdeep learningleg axis

Identifiers

PMID39033340
PMCPMC11716349

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.