ReviewUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Artificial intelligence in fracture diagnostics : Potentials and challenges in the clinical practice].
Review in Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-Assisted Fracture Detection in Orthopedic and Trauma Imaging: Where It Works, Where It Fails, and Principles for Safe Clinical Deployment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Trauma surgery and emergency medical care are facing growing challenges: rising patient numbers, a shortage of specialists and a high diagnostic workload are leading to diagnostic errors, up to 80% of which relate to overlooked fractures. Systems based on artificial intelligence (AI) for fracture diagnostics offer promising support in this context. Modern deep learning algorithms, in particular convolutional neural networks, achieve high sensitivities and specificities in the detection of frequent fractures in large validation studies. As a "second reader", they increase diagnostic accuracy, reduce diagnostic time and improve patient safety, especially in the case of subtle fractures or limited practitioner experience. Additional applications include automated triage, angle measurements, bone age determination and the detection of other pathologies. Limitations include heterogeneous training data, limited performance in complex fractures and regulatory requirements. The continuous technological development promises increasing performance and broader fields of application for AI in fracture diagnostics. Future systems will also increasingly enable multimodal and 3D analyses as well as deeper integration into the clinical workflow. The use of AI does not replace physicians but acts as an assistive tool to increase quality and efficiency; however, further independent, prospective and patient-orientated studies and integration into clinical guidelines are required for a broad implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41222657What 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.