SynthesisEuropean radiology2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) in radiological paediatric fracture assessment: an updated systematic review.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Convolutional neural networks in paediatric fracture detection: pooled evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Performance, Heterogeneity, and Methodological Quality of YOLO-Based Models for Fracture Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Small lesion-high risk: diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in paediatric fractures with medicolegal impact.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for pediatric fracture detection: impact on diagnostic revisions and patient recall rates in a tertiary emergency setting.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of adult-trained artificial intelligence models in paediatric imaging-a scoping review.European radiology · 2026Article
- AI-Assisted Fracture Detection in Orthopedic and Trauma Imaging: Where It Works, Where It Fails, and Principles for Safe Clinical Deployment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of a Novel Classification System for Distal Radioulnar Joint Instability.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of artificial intelligence-based software for the detection of pediatric upper extremity fractures.European radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Artificial intelligence-guided distal radius fracture detection on plain radiographs in comparison with human raters.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecognising bone injuries in children is a critical part of children's imaging, and, recently, several AI algorithms have been developed for this purpose, both in research and commercial settings. We present an updated systematic review of the literature, including the latest developments. METHODS/MATERIALS: Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies published between 1 January 2011 and 6 September 2024 matching search terms 'child', 'AI', 'fracture,' and 'imaging'. Retrieved studies were evaluated, and descriptive statistics were collated for diagnostic performance.
resultsTwenty-six eligible articles were included; seventeen (17/26, 65.%) of these were published within the last two years. Six studies (6/26, 23.1%) used open-source datasets to train their algorithm, the remainder used local data. Sixteen studies (16/26, 61.5%) evaluated a single joint (wrist, elbow, or ankle); multiple bones within the appendicular skeleton were assessed in the other ten studies. Seven articles (7/26, 26.9%) related to the performance of a commercial AI tool. Accuracy of AI models ranged from 85.0 to 100.0%. Six studies (6/26, 23.1%) evaluated the accuracy of human readers with and without AI assistance, of which two studies found a statistically significant improvement when humans were assisted by AI. The largest pool of human readers in any paper consisted of 11 readers of varying experience.
conclusionThe pace of research in AI fracture detection in children's imaging has increased. Studies show high accuracy of AI models, but proof of clinical impact, cost-effectiveness, and any socioeconomic or ethical bias are still lacking. KEY POINTS: Question AI model development has rapidly increased in recent years. We present the latest developments in AI model diagnostic accuracy for paediatric fracture detection. Findings Studies now demonstrate performance improvement when AI is used to assist human interpretation of paediatric fractures, especially when aiding junior radiologists. Clinical relevance Studies show high accuracy for AI models; however, further research is needed to evaluate AI across diverse age groups, bone diseases, and fracture types. Evidence of real-world patient benefit for AI and any socioeconomic or ethical bias are still lacking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40063108What 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.