Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39993795›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025

External Validation of a Winning Artificial Intelligence Algorithm from the RSNA 2022 Cervical Spine Fracture Detection Challenge.

James P Harper, Ghee R Lee, Ian Pan, Xuan V Nguyen, Nathan Quails, Luciano M Prevedello

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors.

James P HarperFrom the Department of Radiology (J.P.H., X.V.N., N.Q., L.M.P.), The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5252-0897
Ghee R LeeCollege of Medicine (G.R.L.), The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Ian PanDepartment of Radiology (I.P.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0650-6614
Xuan V NguyenFrom the Department of Radiology (J.P.H., X.V.N., N.Q., L.M.P.), The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2617-1938
Nathan QuailsFrom the Department of Radiology (J.P.H., X.V.N., N.Q., L.M.P.), The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.
Luciano M PrevedelloFrom the Department of Radiology (J.P.H., X.V.N., N.Q., L.M.P.), The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio luciano.prevedello@osumc.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6768-6452

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe Radiological Society of North America has actively promoted artificial intelligence (AI) challenges since 2017. Algorithms emerging from the recent RSNA 2022 Cervical Spine Fracture Detection Challenge demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in the competition's data set, surpassing results from prior publications. However, their performance in real-world clinical practice is not known. As an initial step toward the goal of assessing feasibility of these models in clinical practice, we conducted a generalizability test by using one of the leading algorithms of the competition. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe deep learning algorithm was selected due to its performance, portability, and ease of use, and installed locally. One hundred examinations (50 consecutive cervical spine CT scans with at least 1 fracture present and 50 consecutive negative CT scans) from a level 1 trauma center not represented in the competition data set were processed at 6.4 seconds per examination. Ground truth was established based on the radiology report with retrospective confirmation of positive fracture cases. Sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and area under the curve were calculated.

resultsThe external validation data set comprised older patients in comparison to the competition set (53.5 ± 21.8 years versus 58 ± 22.0, respectively;

conclusionsThe model performed with a similar sensitivity on the test and external data set, suggesting that such a tool could be potentially generalizable as a triage tool in the emergency setting. Discordant factors such as age-associated comorbidities may affect accuracy and specificity of AI models when used in certain populations. Further research should be encouraged to help elucidate the potential contributions and pitfalls of these algorithms in supporting clinical care.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceCervical VertebraeDeep LearningSpinal FracturesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID39993795
PMCPMC12453477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.