Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39367349›Full record

Observational studyBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

External validation of an artificial intelligence multi-label deep learning model capable of ankle fracture classification.

Jakub Olczak, Jasper Prijs, Frank IJpma, Fredrik Wallin, Ehsan Akbarian, Job Doornberg, Max Gordon

Abstract readValidation StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors.

Jakub OlczakDanderyd University Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Jakub.Olczak@ki.se.
Jasper PrijsFlinders University and Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Frank IJpmaUniversity Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Fredrik WallinDanderyd University Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ehsan AkbarianDanderyd University Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Job DoornbergFlinders University and Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Max GordonDanderyd University Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in medical imaging have made it possible to classify ankle fractures using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recent studies have demonstrated good internal validity for machine learning algorithms using the AO/OTA 2018 classification. This study aimed to externally validate one such model for ankle fracture classification and ways to improve external validity.

methodsIn this retrospective observation study, we trained a deep-learning neural network (7,500 ankle studies) to classify traumatic malleolar fractures according to the AO/OTA classification. Our internal validation dataset (IVD) contained 409 studies collected from Danderyd Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2002 and 2016. The external validation dataset (EVD) contained 399 studies collected from Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia, between 2016 and 2020. Our primary outcome measures were the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) for fracture classification of AO/OTA malleolar (44) fractures. Secondary outcomes were performance on other fractures visible on ankle radiographs and inter-observer reliability of reviewers.

resultsCompared to the weighted mean AUC (wAUC) 0.86 (95%CI 0.82-0.89) for fracture detection in the EVD, the network attained wAUC 0.95 (95%CI 0.94-0.97) for the IVD. The area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) was 0.93 vs. 0.96. The wAUC for individual outcomes (type 44A-C, group 44A1-C3, and subgroup 44A1.1-C3.3) was 0.82 for the EVD and 0.93 for the IVD. The weighted mean AUPR (wAUPR) was 0.59 vs 0.63. Throughout, the performance was superior to that of a random classifier for the EVD.

conclusionAlthough the two datasets had considerable differences, the model transferred well to the EVD and the alternative clinical scenario it represents. The direct clinical implications of this study are that algorithms developed elsewhere need local validation and that discrepancies can be rectified using targeted training. In a wider sense, we believe this opens up possibilities for building advanced treatment recommendations based on exact fracture types that are more objective than current clinical decisions, often influenced by who is present during rounds.

Indexed as

Ankle FracturesDeep LearningAdultArtificial IntelligenceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiographyReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSwedenAnkleAO/OTA classificationExternal validationMachine learningNeural networksTrauma

Identifiers

PMID39367349
PMCPMC11451058

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.