ArticleArXiv2024
Toward Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Bankart Lesions with Deep Learning.
Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bankart lesions, or anterior-inferior glenoid labral tears, are diagnostically challenging on standard MRIs due to their subtle imaging features-often necessitating invasive MRI arthrograms (MRAs). This study develops deep learning (DL) models to detect Bankart lesions on both standard MRIs and MRAs, aiming to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce reliance on MRAs. We curated a dataset of 586 shoulder MRIs (335 standard, 251 MRAs) from 558 patients who underwent arthroscopy. Ground truth labels were derived from intraoperative findings, the gold standard for Bankart lesion diagnosis. Separate DL models for MRAs and standard MRIs were trained using the Swin Transformer architecture, pre-trained on a public knee MRI dataset. Predictions from sagittal, axial, and coronal views were ensembled to optimize performance. The models were evaluated on a 20% hold-out test set (117 MRIs: 46 MRAs, 71 standard MRIs). Bankart lesions were identified in 31.9% of MRAs and 8.6% of standard MRIs. The models achieved AUCs of 0.87 (86% accuracy, 83% sensitivity, 86% specificity) and 0.90 (85% accuracy, 82% sensitivity, 86% specificity) on standard MRIs and MRAs, respectively. These results match or surpass radiologist performance on our dataset and reported literature metrics. Notably, our model's performance on non-invasive standard MRIs matched or surpassed the radiologists interpreting MRAs. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using DL to address the diagnostic challenges posed by subtle pathologies like Bankart lesions. Our models demonstrate potential to improve diagnostic confidence, reduce reliance on invasive imaging, and enhance accessibility to care.
Identifiers
39764408PMC11703322What 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.