ArticleRadiology advances2025
Deep learning diagnosis of adult tibial plateau fractures: multicenter study with external validation.
Article in Radiology advances, 2025. 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.
- Improving pediatric hip fracture detection using deep learning: multicenter validation and clinical reader study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- On Construction of Tibial Plateau Fracture Detection in Different Radiographic Views Using YOLO Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate a MobileNetV3-YOLOv8 deep learning (DL) model for detecting tibial plateau fractures (TPFs), including occult TPFs (OTPFs), on knee radiographs. We hypothesized that the DL model would improve diagnostic performance and reduce interpretation time, particularly for less experienced physicians. Materials and Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study, included 1543 adult patients from 5 tertiary hospitals in China. A total of 3547 radiographs were included: 2837 for training/validation and 710 from a single external center for testing. In the test set, 267 (37.6%) were normal, 282 (39.7%) were obvious TPFs, and 161 (22.7%) were OTPFs. Performance metrics comprised sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), F1-score, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Eleven physicians (6 experienced, 5 inexperienced) interpreted 70 test images with and without DL assistance. Interreader agreement (Fleiss' κ) and interpretation time were evaluated. Results: For obvious TPFs, the model achieved 89.4% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.7-92.3), 92.5% specificity (95% CI, 89.9-95.1), 88.7% PPV, 92.9% NPV, 89.0% F1-score, and 91.9% accuracy (95% CI, 89.7-94.1). For OTPFs, it achieved 85.7% sensitivity (95% CI, 81.2-89.4), 91.3% specificity (95% CI, 88.5-93.2), 74.2% PPV, 95.6% NPV, 79.5% F1-score, and 88.2% accuracy (95% CI, 86.4-89.8). The overall AUROC was 0.949 (95% CI, 0.935-0.963). DL assistance improved OTPF sensitivity of less experienced readers (67.5% to 83.8%), increased interreader agreement (κ) (0.58 [95% CI, 0.52-0.64] to 0.71 [95% CI, 0.65-0.76] and reduced mean interpretation time (55.8 seconds to 34.3 seconds). Conclusion: The MobileNetV3-YOLOv8 model accurately detected both obvious and occult TPFs, substantially improving diagnostic sensitivity, interreader agreement, and efficiency. These findings suggest that AI assistance can enhance diagnostic performance and reduce interpretation time, offering considerable benefits for emergency departments where rapid and accurate fracture detection is paramount.
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.