ArticleRadiology advances2024
Deep generative model of the distal tibial classic metaphyseal lesion in infants: assessment of synthetic images.
Article in Radiology advances, 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.
- Artificial intelligence for abdominopelvic trauma imaging: trends, gaps, and future directions.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Improving the radiographic image analysis of the classic metaphyseal lesion via conditional diffusion models.Medical image analysis · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The classic metaphyseal lesion (CML) is a distinctive fracture highly specific to infant abuse. To increase the size and diversity of the training CML database for automated deep-learning detection of this fracture, we developed a mask conditional diffusion model (MaC-DM) to generate synthetic images with and without CMLs. Purpose: To objectively and subjectively assess the synthetic radiographic images with and without CMLs generated by MaC-DM. Materials and Methods: For retrospective testing, we randomly chose 100 real images (50 normals and 50 with CMLs; 39 infants, male = 22, female = 17; mean age = 4.1 months; SD = 3.1 months) from an existing distal tibia dataset (177 normal, 73 with CMLs), and generated 100 synthetic distal tibia images via MaC-DM (50 normals and 50 with CMLs). These test images were shown to 3 blinded radiologists. In the first session, radiologists determined if the images were normal or had CMLs. In the second session, they determined if the images were real or synthetic. We analyzed the radiologists' interpretations and employed t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding technique to analyze the data distribution of the test images. Results: When presented with the 200 images (100 synthetic, 100 with CMLs), radiologists reliably and accurately diagnosed CMLs (kappa = 0.90, 95% CI = [0.88-0.92]; accuracy = 92%, 95% CI = [89-97]). However, they were inaccurate in differentiating between real and synthetic images (kappa = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.03-0.07]; accuracy = 53%, 95% CI = [49-59]). The t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding analysis showed substantial differences in the data distribution between normal images and those with CMLs (area under the curve = 0.996, 95% CI = [0.992-1.000], Conclusion: Radiologists accurately diagnosed images with distal tibial CMLs but were unable to distinguish real from synthetically generated ones, indicating that our generative model could synthesize realistic images. Thus, MaC-DM holds promise as an effective strategy for data augmentation in training machine-learning models for diagnosis of distal tibial CMLs.
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.