ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Are artificial intelligence generated lower extremity radiographic measurements accurate in a cohort with implants?
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLeg length discrepancy (LLD) and malalignment of the lower extremity can lead to pain and increased risk of osteoarthritis. Radiographic measurements on anteroposterior (AP) full-length radiographs can be used to assess LLD and lower extremity alignment. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of AI software in performing lower extremity radiographic measurements in patients with implants. The secondary aim was to compare its efficiency to that of radiologists. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study used the following eight angles and five lengths: hip-knee-angle (HKA), anatomical-tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), anatomical-mechanical-axis angle (AMA), joint-line-convergence angle (JLCA), mechanical-lateral-proximal-femur-angle (mLPFA), mechanical-lateral-distal-femur-angle (mLDFA), mechanical-medial-proximal-tibia-angle (mMPTA), mechanical-lateral-distal-tibia- angle (mLDTA), femur length, tibia length, full leg length, leg-length-discrepancy (LLD), and mechanical-axis-deviation (MAD). Two radiologists and AI software independently performed these measurements on 156 legs. The statistical methods used to assess AI performance were intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsThe AI generated output for 129/156 legs. 11/13 of the variables showed excellent agreement (ICC ≥ 0.75) between AI and the readers. Bland Altman performance targets were met for 5/13 variables. The mean (standard deviation) reading time for the AI and two readers, respectively, was 38 (6) seconds, 181 (41) seconds, and 214 (77) seconds.
conclusionIn a cohort with lower extremity metal implants, AI-based leg length measurements were fast and accurate although most angular measurements were not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40295351What 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.