SynthesisSpine deformity2025
Deep learning in Cobb angle automated measurement on X-rays: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of artificial intelligence in automated measurement of patellofemoral joint parameters: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Fully Automated Deep Learning-Based Lenke Classification for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Using Multi-View Full-Spine Radiographs: Development and Clinical Validation.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Current applications and challenges of artificial intelligence applied to diagnostics in pediatric musculoskeletal imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Identifying scoliosis in a population-based adult cohort: automation of a validated method based on total body dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans.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 · 2026Article
- Automating Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Classification: An Interpretable, Workflow-Based Approach to Lenke Classification: Commentary on an article by Lingcong Xu, MD, et al.: " A Fully Automated Multistage Deep Learning System for Lenke Classification. Enhanced Diagnostic Precision in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis ".The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2026Article
- Who Is the Surgeon Now: Human Hands or Machine Minds? Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedics from Diagnosis to Follow-Up-A Structured Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Interpretable automated cobb angle measurement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using a lightweight keypoint-to-geometry network: cross-center external validation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in advancing scoliosis care: a rapid review of current evidence and future opportunities.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to provide an overview of different deep learning algorithms (DLAs), identify the limitations, and summarize potential solutions to improve the performance of DLAs.
methodsWe reviewed eligible studies on DLAs for automated Cobb angle estimation on X-rays and conducted a meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was conducted in six databases up until September 2023. Our meta-analysis included an evaluation of reported circular mean absolute error (CMAE) from the studies, as well as a subgroup analysis of implementation strategies. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). This study was registered in PROSPERO prior to initiation (CRD42023403057).
resultsWe identified 120 articles from our systematic search (n = 3022), eventually including 50 studies in the systematic review and 17 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall estimate for CMAE was 2.99 (95% CI 2.61-3.38), with high heterogeneity (94%, p < 0.01). Segmentation-based methods showed greater accuracy (p < 0.01), with a CMAE of 2.40 (95% CI 1.85-2.95), compared to landmark-based methods, which had a CMAE of 3.31 (95% CI 2.89-3.72).
conclusionsAccording to our limited meta-analysis results, DLAs have shown relatively high accuracy for automated Cobb angle measurement. In terms of CMAE, segmentation-based methods may perform better than landmark-based methods. We also summarized potential ways to improve model design in future studies. It is important to follow quality guidelines when reporting on DLAs.
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.