ArticleBone & joint research2025
Development and evaluation of deep learning models for detecting and classifying various bone tumours in full-field limb radiographs using automated object detection models.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Aims: We aim to develop a fully automated deep-learning model to detect and classify benign/malignant bone tumours in full-field limb radiographs using an object detection model. The secondary aim is to identify differences in classification characteristics between the developed automated model, three orthopaedic oncologists, and three general orthopaedic surgeons. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 642 limb bone tumours with 40 diagnoses confirmed pathologically from three institutions (378 benign, 264 malignant including intermediate types). We employed end-to-end object Detection with transformers with Improved deNoising anchOr boxes (DINO) and You Only Look Once (YOLO) models. We performed five-fold cross validation on the collected radiographs, using the training data to train the models, validation data to optimize the models' parameters, and independent test data for final performance evaluation. Firstly, we confirmed DINO achieves a higher detection rate than YOLO. Secondly, we compared the classification performance of DINO with those of doctors, using various metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F-measure. Results: The DINO model achieved a higher mean tumour detection rate (85.7% (95% CI 81.5 to 89.8)) than the YOLO model (80.1% (95% CI 77.2 to 82.9)). For the evaluation of classification performance, we used 113 cases that DINO detected out of 128 randomly selected cases as the evaluation test set. The accuracy and sensitivity of the DINO model, as a superior model, were significantly higher than those of general orthopaedic surgeons. The DINO model correctly classified 78.6% (22 out of 28 cases) of the challenging cases that two or more doctors misclassified. However, DINO's diagnostic errors primarily occurred with tumours that were diagnostically challenging for orthopaedic oncologists or present in unusual sites. Conclusion: The DINO model automatically detects bone tumours better than the YOLO model, and may assist doctors in detecting tumours and classifying malignant/benign bone tumours in clinical practice.
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.