ReviewJournal of hip preservation surgery2025
Characterizing hip joint morphology using a multitask deep learning model.
Review in Journal of hip preservation surgery, 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.
- Development and Application of Automated Preoperative Planning System for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip via Keypoint Selective Integration.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning is revolutionizing medical imaging analysis by enabling the classification of various pathoanatomical conditions at scale. Unfortunately, there have been a limited number of accurate and efficient machine learning (ML) algorithms that have been developed for the diagnostic workup of morphological hip pathologies, including developmental dysplasia of the hip and femoroacetabular impingement. The current study reports on the performance of a novel ML model with YOLOv5 and ConvNeXt-Tiny architecture in predicting the morphological features of these conditions, including cam deformity, ischial spine sign, dysplastic appearance, and other abnormalities. The model achieved 78.0% accuracy for detecting cam deformity, 87.2% for ischial spine sign, 76.6% for dysplasia, and 71.6% for all abnormalities combined. The model achieved an Area under the Receiver Operating Curve of 0.89 for ischial spine sign, 0.80 for cam deformity, 0.80 for dysplasia, and 0.81 for all abnormalities combined. Inter-rater agreement among surgeons, assessed using Gwet's AC1, was substantial for dysplasia (0.83) and all abnormalities (0.88), and moderate for ischial spine sign (0.75) and cam deformity (0.61).
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.