ArticlePolish journal of radiology2025
Assessment of X-ray ankle joint image projection correctness with the use of machine learning algorithms.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Accurate geometrical measurements of ankle joint (AJ) X-rays are essential for planning and executing orthopaedic procedures like alloplasty. Reliable assessment of the projection correctness of the AJ radiograms has to precede such measurements, and it is thus a vital step in the process. To create an artificial intelligence-based tool for automatic assessment of the correctness of the X-ray image projection of AJ. Material and methods: 1062 antero-posterior and lateral AJ X-rays were categorized into correct and rotated groups based on the literature. The database was split with an 80 : 10 : 10 ratio for training, validation, and test sets, respectively. Data analysis was conducted using 32 targeted neural networks, evaluating with binary metrics: accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Results: The Xception neural network yielded the best results. Accuracies of 1.0, 0.849, and 0.888 were obtained for the training, validation, and test sets, respectively. The test set metrics achieved by Xception were as follows: precision - 0.935, recall - 0.879, and F1 score - 0.906. Conclusions: The model achieved high accuracy in recognizing the projection correctness compared to literature reports, which can directly result in a reduction in the workload for radiologists or orthopaedic specialists, as well as a reduced risk of misdiagnosis.
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.