ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Uncertainty quantification and explainable AI in orthopaedic imaging: A timely call to action.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trustworthy AI models to predict prolonged hospital length-of-stay in orthopedic surgery.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Article
- Mini-review on human-centered assurance in robot-assisted orthopedics and neurosurgery.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has made a big leap in orthopaedic imaging, with deep learning models achieving remarkable accuracy in tasks such as knee osteoarthritis classification and grading, fracture detection, and implant assessment. Yet accuracy in AI models alone is insufficient for clinical trust, adoption, and uptake. Orthopaedic decision-making often carries high risk settings, where any misclassification or overconfidence can have significant consequences for treatment recommendations and patient outcomes. Despite this reality, most current AI models operate as "close boxes", providing predictions without clarifying their reasoning or quantifying uncertainty. This forum article argues that the integration of uncertainty quantification and explainable AI is no longer optional, but a timely call to action for the orthopaedic community. Uncertainty quantification methods can highlight when predictions are unreliable, prompting confirmatory testing or human oversight, while explainable AI techniques provide transparency into model reasoning, enabling surgeons and radiologists to better interpret AI outputs. Together, these advances are essential components of trustworthy AI, bridging the gap between technical innovation and real-world orthopaedic practice. By embracing uncertainty-aware and explainable AI models, orthopaedic imaging can move beyond accuracy toward accountability, responsibility, and safer integration into clinical workflows. The time to act is now.
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.