Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39291095›Full record

ArticleJOR spine2024

Development and validation of deep learning models for identifying the brand of pedicle screws on plain spine radiographs.

Yu-Cheng Yao, Cheng-Li Lin, Hung-Hsun Chen, Hsi-Hsien Lin, Wei Hsiung, Shih-Tien Wang, Ying-Chou Sun, Yu-Hsuan Tang, Po-Hsin Chou

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JOR spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Fully automated pedicle screw manufacturer identification in plain radiograph with deep learning methods.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yu-Cheng YaoSchool of Medicine National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University Taipei Taiwan.
Cheng-Li LinDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine National Cheung Kung University Tainan Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7315-7709
Hung-Hsun ChenProgram of Artificial Intelligence and Information Security Fu Jen Catholic University New Taipei City Taiwan.
Hsi-Hsien LinSchool of Medicine National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University Taipei Taiwan.
Wei HsiungSchool of Medicine National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University Taipei Taiwan.
Shih-Tien WangSchool of Medicine National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University Taipei Taiwan.
Ying-Chou SunSchool of Medicine National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University Taipei Taiwan.
Yu-Hsuan TangDepartment of Medical Imaging and Radiological Technology Yuanpei University of Medical Technology Hsinchu Taiwan.
Po-Hsin ChouSchool of Medicine National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University Taipei Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5899-1124

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In spinal revision surgery, previous pedicle screws (PS) may need to be replaced with new implants. Failure to accurately identify the brand of PS-based instrumentation preoperatively may increase the risk of perioperative complications. This study aimed to develop and validate an optimal deep learning (DL) model to identify the brand of PS-based instrumentation on plain radiographs of spine (PRS) using anteroposterior (AP) and lateral images. Methods: A total of 529 patients who received PS-based instrumentation from seven manufacturers were enrolled in this retrospective study. The postoperative PRS were gathered as ground truths. The training, validation, and testing datasets contained 338, 85, and 106 patients, respectively. YOLOv5 was used to crop out the screws' trajectory, and the EfficientNet-b0 model was used to develop single models (AP, Lateral, Merge, and Concatenated) based on the different PRS images. The ensemble models were different combinations of the single models. Primary outcomes were the models' performance in accuracy, sensitivity, precision, F1-score, kappa value, and area under the curve (AUC). Secondary outcomes were the relative performance of models versus human readers and external validation of the DL models. Results: The Lateral model had the most stable performance among single models. The discriminative performance was improved by the ensemble method. The AP + Lateral ensemble model had the most stable performance, with an accuracy of 0.9434, F1 score of 0.9388, and AUC of 0.9834. The performance of the ensemble models was comparable to that of experienced orthopedic surgeons and superior to that of inexperienced orthopedic surgeons. External validation revealed that the Lat + Concat ensemble model had the best accuracy (0.9412). Conclusion: The DL models demonstrated stable performance in identifying the brand of PS-based instrumentation based on AP and/or lateral images of PRS, which may assist orthopedic spine surgeons in preoperative revision planning in clinical practice.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep learninginstrumentationpedicle screws

Identifiers

PMID39291095
PMCPMC11406509

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.