ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Deep learning versus manual measurement of hallux valgus angle and intermetatarsal angle on Weight-Bearing X-rays in hallux valgus.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop two deep learning (DL)-based automated measurement systems (AMSs) for hallux valgus (HV) angles estimation, namely axis segmentation-based and landmark-based AMS, and to evaluate their reliability, accuracy, and efficiency relative to manual measurements.
methodsAMSs were developed using weight-bearing dorsoplantar radiographs (1,683 images from 1,232 patients with HV). An evaluation cohort (208 feet: 121 from patients with HV and 87 from controls) underwent manual and automated measurements of the hallux valgus angle (HVA) and intermetatarsal angle (IMA). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Pearson correlation coefficients (r), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), Bland-Altman plots, and measured average processing time were calculated.
resultsThe axis segmentation-based AMS outperformed the landmark-based AMS in both groups, with stronger correlations for HVA (HV: r = 0.96 vs. 0.95; controls: r = 0.77 vs. 0.74) and IMA (HV: r = 0.83 vs. 0.78; controls: r = 0.57 vs. 0.45; all P < 0.0001). In both AMSs and groups, HVA measurements exhibited lower errors and stronger correlations than IMA measurements. Both models significantly distinguished patients with HV from controls (P < 0.0001). The average time required was 3.5 min for manual measurement versus 6.3 s (axis segmentation-based) and 6.5 s (landmark-based) for automated measurements.
conclusionOur findings indicated that DL-based AMSs provided reliable, reproducible, and accurate HVA and IMA measurements from HV radiographs, with the axis segmentation-based AMS outperforming the landmark-based AMS.
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.