Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40063108›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Artificial intelligence (AI) in radiological paediatric fracture assessment: an updated systematic review.

Emily Ashworth, Emma Allan, Cato Pauling, Harsimran Laidlow-Singh, Owen J Arthurs, Susan C Shelmerdine

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

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

Emily Ashworth *Department of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. emily.ashworth4@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1973-5958
Emma Allan *Department of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Cato PaulingUniversity College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.
Harsimran Laidlow-SinghDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Evelina London Children's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Owen J ArthursDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Susan C ShelmerdineDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceFractures, BoneChildHumansArtificial intelligenceDiagnosisFracturePaediatricPlain radiography

Identifiers

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.