ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2026
Explainable opportunistic osteoporosis screening from chest X-rays: a retrospective comparison of foundation models.
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for opportunistic screening of osteoporosis across multiple imaging modalities: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence-based osteoporosis screening system on portable chest radiographs.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated foundation models for opportunistic osteoporosis screening from chest X-rays using a novel explainability framework. DINOv2 with low-rank adaptation achieved the best performance (AUC 0.93) while demonstrating clear clinical reasoning. Our findings highlight that explainability should be prioritized alongside accuracy in medical AI, enhancing trust in clinical deployment. PURPOSE: Deep learning models show promise for opportunistic osteoporosis screening from chest X-rays but have traditionally relied on convolutional neural networks with limited explainability. This study introduces a quantitative framework for explainability evaluation and systematically compares diverse foundation models to identify an optimal balance between performance and explainability.
methodsIn this retrospective study, a retrospective dataset comprising 21,031 chest X-rays paired with bone mineral density scores from 14,502 female patients at Seoul National University Hospital was used. Twelve foundation model variants-combinations of natural- and medical-domain models fine-tuned using various strategies-were trained to classify osteoporosis status (normal, osteopenia, or osteoporosis). Foundation models were evaluated based on predictive performance (AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity) and explainability, assessed through occlusion analysis (AUC change after bone perturbation,
resultsDINOv2, fine-tuned with low-rank adaptation, achieved the highest predictive performance (AUC of 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.94) and demonstrated robust explainability by focusing on clinically relevant bone structures, such as the spine and ribs. In osteoporosis screening from chest X-rays, statistical analysis showed that medical foundation models did not consistently outperform natural-domain models, and higher performance did not always correlate with better explainability.
conclusionOur findings underscore the necessity of incorporating explainability as a key criterion when selecting deep learning models for opportunistic osteoporosis screening. Furthermore, the proposed framework can be readily extended to other medical tasks, fostering the development of more trustworthy and interpretable AI-assisted screening tools.
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.