Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40610833›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2025

Cross-validation of an artificial intelligence tool for fracture classification and localization on conventional radiography in Dutch population.

Huibert C Ruitenbeek, Sahil Sahil, Aradhana Kumar, Ravi Kumar Kushawaha, Swetha Tanamala, Saigopal Sathyamurthy, Rohitashva Agrawal, Subhankar Chattoraj, Jasika Paramasamy, Daniel Bos and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Wrist Joint Injury Diagnosis.International journal of medical sciences · 2026
    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

13 authors.

Huibert C Ruitenbeek *Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sahil Sahil *Qure.ai, Level 7, Oberoi Commerz II, Goregaon East, Mumbai, India.
Aradhana KumarQure.ai, Level 7, Oberoi Commerz II, Goregaon East, Mumbai, India.
Ravi Kumar KushawahaQure.ai, Level 7, Oberoi Commerz II, Goregaon East, Mumbai, India.
Swetha TanamalaQure.ai, Level 7, Oberoi Commerz II, Goregaon East, Mumbai, India.
Saigopal SathyamurthyQure.ai, Level 7, Oberoi Commerz II, Goregaon East, Mumbai, India.
Rohitashva AgrawalQure.ai, Level 7, Oberoi Commerz II, Goregaon East, Mumbai, India.
Subhankar ChattorajQure.ai, Level 7, Oberoi Commerz II, Goregaon East, Mumbai, India.
Jasika ParamasamyDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniel BosDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Roshan FahimiDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Edwin H G OeiDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacob J VisserDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.j.visser@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9935-2097

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study is to validate the effectiveness of an AI tool trained on Indian data in a Dutch medical center and to assess its ability to classify and localize fractures.

methodsConventional radiographs acquired between January 2019 and November 2022 were analyzed using a multitask deep neural network. The tool, trained on Indian data, identified and localized fractures in 17 body parts. The reference standard was based on radiology reports resulting from routine clinical workflow and confirmed by an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist. The analysis included both patient-wise and fracture-wise evaluations, employing binary and Intersection over Union (IoU) metrics to assess fracture detection and localization accuracy.

resultsIn total, 14,311 radiographs (median age, 48 years (range 18-98), 7265 male) were analyzed and categorized by body parts; clavicle, shoulder, humerus, elbow, forearm, wrist, hand and finger, pelvis, hip, femur, knee, lower leg, ankle, foot and toe. 4156/14,311 (29%) had fractures. The AI tool demonstrated overall patient-wise sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 87.1% (95% CI: 86.1-88.1%), 87.1% (95% CI: 86.4-87.7%), and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.91-0.93), respectively. Fracture detection rate was 60% overall, ranging from 7% for rib fractures to 90% for clavicle fractures.

conclusionsThis study validates a fracture detection AI tool on a Western-European dataset, originally trained on Indian data. While classification performance is robust on real clinical data, fracture-wise analysis reveals variability in localization accuracy, underscoring the need for refinement in fracture localization. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: AI may provide help by enabling optimal use of limited resources or personnel. This study evaluates an AI tool designed to aid in detecting fractures, possibly reducing reading time or optimization of radiology workflow by prioritizing fracture-positive cases. KEY POINTS: Cross-validation on a consecutive Dutch cohort confirms this AI tool's clinical robustness. The tool detected fractures with 87% sensitivity, 87% specificity, and 0.92 AUC. AI localizes 60% of fractures, the highest for clavicle (90%) and lowest for ribs (7%).

Indexed as

Appendicular skeletonArtificial intelligenceConventional radiographyFractureValidation

Identifiers

PMID40610833
PMCPMC12229378

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.