ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Cross-validation of an artificial intelligence tool for fracture classification and localization on conventional radiography in Dutch population.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in detecting foot and ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of X-ray-based deep learning models for detecting ankle and foot fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Skeletal radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Fracture Detection on Bone Radiographs: The Impact of an AI Tool on Orthopaedic Night Shifts.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pelvic Fracture Diagnosis and Outcome Prediction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Wrist Joint Injury Diagnosis.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.