Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40555880›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology experimental2025

Artificial intelligence for predicting the risk of bone fragility fractures in osteoporosis.

Fabio Massimo Ulivieri, Carmelo Messina, Francesco Maria Vitale, Luca Rinaudo, Enzo Grossi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Clinical Primer on Computer Vision.Calcified tissue international · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Consensus statement on the application of artificial intelligence in osteoporosis screening and management: perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

5 authors.

Fabio Massimo UlivieriBone Metabolic Unit, Rome American Hospital, Gruppo Nefrocenter, Roma, Italy.
Carmelo MessinaU.O.C. Radiodiagnostica, ASST Centro Specialistico Ortopedico Traumatologico Gaetano Pini-CTO, Milan, Italy. carmelo.messina@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7518-5773
Francesco Maria VitaleIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Luca RinaudoTecnologie Avanzate T.A. s.r.l, Turin, Italy.
Enzo GrossiFondazione Villa Santa Maria, Tavernerio, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoporosis is widespread with a high incidence rate, resulting in fragility fractures which are a major contributor to mortality among the elderly. Artificial intelligence (AI), in particular artificial neural networks, appears to be useful in managing osteoporosis complexity, where bone mineral density usually reduces with aging, losing the pivotal role in decision-making regarding fracture prediction and treatment choice. Nevertheless, only some osteoporotic patients develop fragility fractures, and treatments often are not prescribed because of the high costs and poor patient adherence. AI can help clinicians to identify patients prone to fragility fractures who can benefit from preventive interventions. We describe herein the methodology issues underlying the potential advantages of introducing AI methods to support clinical decision-making in osteoporosis, being aware of challenges regarding data availability and quality, model interpretability, integration into clinical workflows, and validation of predictive accuracy. The fact that no AI fracture risk prediction software is still publicly available can be related to the fact that few high-quality datasets are available and that AI models, particularly deep learning approaches, often act as 'black boxes', making it difficult to understand how predictions are made. In addition, the effective implementation of predictive software has not reached sufficient integration with existing systems. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: With aging, bone mineral density may lose the pivotal role in osteoporosis decision-making regarding fracture prediction and treatment choice. In this scenario, AI, particularly artificial neural networks (ANNs), can be useful in supporting the clinical management of patients affected by osteoporosis. KEY POINTS: Osteoporosis is a complex disease with many interlinked clinical and radiological variables. Bone mineral density and other known indices do not allow optimal decision-making in patients affected by osteoporosis. ANN analysis can better discriminate osteoporotic patients particularly prone to fragility fractures and can predict future fractures.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesBone DensityHumansNeural Networks, ComputerRisk AssessmentArtificial intelligenceBone densityDeep learningOsteoporosisOsteoporotic fractures

Identifiers

PMID40555880
PMCPMC12187619

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.