ArticleJournal of hand and microsurgery2025
The role of artificial intelligence in predicting injured structures based on clinical images of lacerations in the volar aspect of the hand and forearm.
Article in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is AI an advanced intelligence, artificial intelligence, or annoying intelligence in hand and microsurgery?Journal of hand and microsurgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recently introduced image processing capabilities of AI models, which are accessible to a broad audience, may contribute to progress in medical research. Inspection and physical examination are important components of hand injury assessment, but they have inherent limitations in accuracy. The purpose of this study was to compare the structures identified as damaged during physical examination with those predicted by an AI model, utilizing its image processing capability. We hypothesized that the AI tool would demonstrate a level of accuracy comparable to that of physical examination in predicting injured structures. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the files of patients with hand and forearm injuries related to the volar aspect from January 2024 to July 2024. After exclusions, a total of 30 patients were included in the final analyses. Structures suspected to be damaged based on the initial evaluation and those identified as injured during surgery were documented through chart review. For the same patients, the AI tool (ChatGPT-4.0) was utilized to predict injured structures from clinical photos obtained during the initial examination. We examined the correlation and overlap between the structures identified as injured during the initial clinical examination and those predicted by the AI tool, as well as the correlation and overlap between the structures predicted by the AI tool and those confirmed as injured during surgical procedures. Results: The sensitivity of the physical examination was found to be 66.0 % (95 % CI: 57.5 %-73.7 %), while the specificity was 98,7 % (95 % CI: 97,6 % to 99,4 %). The sensitivity of the AI tool was found to be 61.7 % (95 % CI: 53.1 %-69.8 %), while the specificity was 82.4 % (95 % CI: 79.4 %-85.2 %). Conclusion: In its current form, AI demonstrates limited yet promising potential as an adjunctive tool in the clinical evaluation of flexor-side injuries of the hand and forearm. Level of evidence: III, Diagnostic study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.