ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Deep learning for automated grading of radiographic sacroiliitis.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated grading and diagnosis of sacroiliitis on CT images using a 3D convolutional neural network: a multicenter retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Year in Review: Axial Spondyloarthritis.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT in Radiographic Staging of Sacroiliitis According to the Modified New York Criteria.Archives of rheumatology · 2026Article
- Imaging pathways in spondyloarthritis: integrating radiography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, low-dose computed tomography, and artificial intelligence methods : Radiology and AI in SpA.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Grading assessment of sacroiliitis via X-ray is widely used in clinical evaluation. The aim of this study was to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI) system to help physicians in assessing and diagnosing sacroiliitis from standard X-ray images. Methods: In this retrospective study, a deep learning model for the automated grading assessment of radiographic sacroiliitis was developed using pelvic X-ray images from a training set of 465 individuals (930 single sacroiliac joints) and a validation set of 195 individuals (390 single sacroiliac joints). The algorithm was tested using an external test set of 223 individuals (446 single sacroiliac joints). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity to assess the model's performance. The findings of the model were used as a reference to determine its utility in aiding radiologists in the diagnosis and grading assessment of sacroiliitis. Results: The neural network model demonstrated proficiency in assessing grading of sacroiliitis. In the external test set, the model achieved a grading accuracy rate of 63.90% for radiographic sacroiliitis, and its diagnostic accuracy for determining the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis reached 90.13%. With the assistance of the model, the diagnostic accuracy of radiological sacroiliac arthritis by two junior imaging physicians improved significantly, increasing from 92.45% and 91.10% to 97.17% and 95.29%, respectively. Furthermore, the accuracy of image grading (grades 0 to 4) also showed notable improvement, rising from 75.00% and 74.08% to 88.89% and 80.90%, respectively. Conclusions: The AI model demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and can greatly enhance the precision of radiographic sacroiliitis grading.
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.