ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Clinical deployment and prospective validation of an AI model for limb-length discrepancy measurements using an open-source platform.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo deploy an AI model to measure limb-length discrepancy (LLD) and prospectively validate its performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe encoded the inference of an LLD AI model into a docker container, incorporated it into a computational platform for clinical deployment, and conducted two prospective validation studies: a shadow trial (07/2024-9/2024) and a clinical trial (11/2024-01/2025). During each trial period, we queried for LLD EOS scanograms to serve as inputs to our model. For the shadow trial, we hid the AI-annotated outputs from the radiologists, and for the clinical trial, we displayed the AI-annotated output to the radiologists at the time of study interpretation. Afterward, we collected the bilateral femoral and tibial lengths from the radiology reports and compared them against those generated by the AI model. We used median absolute difference (MAD) and interquartile range (IQR) as summary statistics to assess the performance of our model.
resultsOur shadow trial consisted of 84 EOS scanograms from 84 children, with 168 femoral and tibial lengths. The MAD (IQR) of the femoral and tibial lengths were 0.2 cm (0.3 cm) and 0.2 cm (0.3 cm), respectively. Our clinical trial consisted of 114 EOS scanograms from 114 children, with 228 femoral and tibial lengths. The MAD (IQR) of the femoral and tibial lengths were 0.3 cm (0.4 cm) and 0.2 cm (0.3 cm), respectively.
conclusionWe successfully employed a computational platform for seamless integration and deployment of an LLD AI model into our clinical workflow, and prospectively validated its performance. KEY POINTS: Question No AI models have been clinically deployed for limb-length discrepancy (LLD) assessment in children, and the prospective validation of these models is unknown. Findings We deployed an LLD AI model using a homegrown platform, with prospective trials showing a median absolute difference of 0.2-0.3 cm in estimating bone lengths. Clinical relevance An LLD AI model with performance comparable to that of radiologists can serve as a secondary reader in increasing the confidence and accuracy of LLD measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40990984What 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.