Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40405573›Full record

SynthesisJournal of thoracic imaging2025

Detection, Classification, and Segmentation of Rib Fractures From CT Data Using Deep Learning Models: A Review of Literature and Pooled Analysis.

Stella Den Hengst, Noor Borren, Esther M M Van Lieshout, Job N Doornberg, Theo Van Walsum, Mathieu M E Wijffels, Michael H J Verhofstad

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of thoracic imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Stella Den HengstTrauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center.
Noor BorrenTrauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center.
Esther M M Van LieshoutTrauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center.
Job N DoornbergDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen and Groningen University, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Theo Van WalsumDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam.
Mathieu M E WijffelsTrauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center.
Michael H J VerhofstadTrauma Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTrauma-induced rib fractures are common injuries. The gold standard for diagnosing rib fractures is computed tomography (CT), but the sensitivity in the acute setting is low, and interpreting CT slices is labor-intensive. This has led to the development of new diagnostic approaches leveraging deep learning (DL) models. This systematic review and pooled analysis aimed to compare the performance of DL models in the detection, segmentation, and classification of rib fractures based on CT scans. MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature search was performed using various databases for studies describing DL models detecting, segmenting, or classifying rib fractures from CT data. Reported performance metrics included sensitivity, false-positive rate, F1-score, precision, accuracy, and mean average precision. A meta-analysis was performed on the sensitivity scores to compare the DL models with clinicians.

resultsOf the 323 identified records, 25 were included. Twenty-one studies reported on detection, four on segmentation, and 10 on classification. Twenty studies had adequate data for meta-analysis. The gold standard labels were provided by clinicians who were radiologists and orthopedic surgeons. For detecting rib fractures, DL models had a higher sensitivity (86.7%; 95% CI: 82.6%-90.2%) than clinicians (75.4%; 95% CI: 68.1%-82.1%). In classification, the sensitivity of DL models for displaced rib fractures (97.3%; 95% CI: 95.6%-98.5%) was significantly better than that of clinicians (88.2%; 95% CI: 84.8%-91.3%).

conclusionsDL models for rib fracture detection and classification achieved promising results. With better sensitivities than clinicians for detecting and classifying displaced rib fractures, the future should focus on implementing DL models in daily clinics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-systematic review and pooled analysis.

Indexed as

Deep LearningRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRib FracturesTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansSensitivity and Specificityartificial intelligencecomputed tomographydeep learningrib fracture

Identifiers

PMID40405573
PMCPMC12369507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.