ArticleScientific reports2024
Automated Association for Osteosynthesis Foundation and Orthopedic Trauma Association classification of pelvic fractures on pelvic radiographs using deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attention-Guided EfficientNet-B3 with Grad-CAM Visualization for 22-Class Bone Fracture and Anatomical-Region Classification on the MultiBoneX Dataset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond the pelvic ring: benchmarking multi-bone segmentation for ROI-Guided fracture detection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pelvic Fracture Diagnosis and Outcome Prediction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for early diagnosis in emergency department.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence algorithms in orthopaedics: A narrative review of methods and clinical applications.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence for abdominopelvic trauma imaging: trends, gaps, and future directions.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Integrating artificial intelligence into orthopedics: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-energy impacts, like vehicle crashes or falls, can lead to pelvic ring injuries. Rapid diagnosis and treatment are crucial due to the risks of severe bleeding and organ damage. Pelvic radiography promptly assesses fracture extent and location, but struggles to diagnose bleeding. The AO/OTA classification system grades pelvic instability, but its complexity limits its use in emergency settings. This study develops and evaluates a deep learning algorithm to classify pelvic fractures on radiographs per the AO/OTA system. Pelvic radiographs of 773 patients with pelvic fractures and 167 patients without pelvic fractures were retrospectively analyzed at a single center. Pelvic fractures were classified into types A, B, and C using medical records categorized by an orthopedic surgeon according to the AO/OTA classification system. Accuracy, Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), and F1 score were measured to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the deep learning algorithms. The segmentation model showed high performance with 0.98 accuracy and 0.96-0.97 DSC. The AO/OTA classification model demonstrated effective performance with a 0.47-0.80 F1 score and 0.69-0.88 accuracy. Additionally, the classification model had a macro average of 0.77-0.94. Performance evaluation of the models showed relatively favorable results, which can aid in early classification of pelvic fractures.
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.