ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Role of Artificial Intelligence in Minimizing Missed and Undiagnosed Fractures Among Trainee Residents.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-Assisted Fracture Detection in Orthopedic and Trauma Imaging: Where It Works, Where It Fails, and Principles for Safe Clinical Deployment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Traumatic Fractures and dislocations are missed up to 10% at the first line of defense in the emergency room and by the junior orthopedic residents in training. This review was done to evaluate the accuracy of AI-assisted fracture detection and to compare with the residents in training. Methods: We searched all related electronic databases for English language literature between January 2015 and July 2023, Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Allied Health Literature, with keywords of Artificial Intelligence, fractures, dislocations, X-rays, radiographs and missed diagnosis. The data extracted included a number of patients/images studied, site of fractures analyzed, algorithms used, the accuracy of the report based on the algorithm, sensitivity, and specificity, area under the curve (AUC), comparison between the algorithm, junior orthopedic resident, emergency physicians, and board certified radiologists. Results: Twenty-seven publications fulfilled our objectives and were analyzed in detail. Ninety-two thousand two hundred and thirty-six images were analyzed for fractures, which showed that the overall accuracy of the correct diagnosis was 90.35±6.88%, sensitivity 90.08±8.2%, specificity 90.16±7 and AUC was 0.931±0.06. The accuracy of the AI model was 94.24±4.19, and that of orthopedic resident was 85.18±7.01 (P value of <0.0001), with sensitivity 92.15±7.12 versus 86.38±7.6 (P<0.0001) and specificity of 93.77±4.03 versus 87.05±12.9 (P<0.0001). A single study compared 1703 hip fracture images between the AI model versus orthopedic resident and board-certified radiologist and found the accuracy to be 98% versus 87% and 92% (P value of <0.0001). Conclusion: This review accentuates AI's potential for accurate diagnosis of fractures. We believe the AI algorithm should be incorporated in the emergency rooms where trainee residents and junior orthopedic residents could routinely use AI so that the incidence of missed fractures can be curtailed.
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.