ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Diagnostic value of artificial intelligence-based software for the detection of pediatric upper extremity fractures.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning models for detecting wrist and distal forearm fractures in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Emergency radiology · 2026Review
- Digital Eye: Deep Learning for Detecting Physeal Fractures of the Pediatric Distal Radius.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFractures in children are common in emergency care, and accurate diagnosis is crucial to avoid complications affecting skeletal development. Limited access to pediatric radiology specialists emphasizes the potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-based diagnostic tools. This study evaluates the performance of the AI software BoneView® for detecting fractures of the upper extremity in children aged 2-18 years. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using radiographic data from 826 pediatric patients presenting to the university's pediatric emergency department. Independent assessments by two experienced pediatric radiologists served as reference standard. The diagnostic accuracy of the AI tool compared to the reference standard was evaluated and performance parameters, e.g., sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated.
resultsThe AI tool achieved an overall sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 91% for detecting fractures of the upper extremities. Significantly poorer performance compared to the reference standard was observed for the shoulder, elbow, hand, and fingers, while no significant difference was found for the wrist, clavicle, upper arm, and forearm. The software performed best for wrist fractures (sensitivity: 96%; specificity: 94%) and worst for elbow fractures (sensitivity: 87%; specificity: 65%).
conclusionThe software assessed provides diagnostic support in pediatric emergency radiology. While its overall performance is robust, limitations in specific anatomical regions underscore the need for further training of the underlying algorithms. The results suggest that AI can complement clinical expertise but should not replace radiological assessment. KEY POINTS: Question There is no comprehensive analysis of an AI-based tool for the diagnosis of pediatric fractures focusing on the upper extremities. Findings The AI-based software demonstrated solid overall diagnostic accuracy in the detection of upper limb fractures in children, with performance differing by anatomical region. Clinical relevance AI-based fracture detection can support pediatric emergency radiology, especially where expert interpretation is limited. However, further algorithm training is needed for certain anatomical regions and for detecting associated findings such as joint effusions to maximize clinical benefit.
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.