ArticleCureus2025
Identifying Volar Locking Plates on Plain Radiographs: Can Artificial Intelligence Models 'Beat' Clinicians?
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Hand surgeons are frequently required to identify volar locking plates on plain radiographs. This is important, for example, when planning what equipment is required for revision, implant removal or periprosthetic fractures, but it can be challenging, especially if surgery took place in another hospital or even country. Artificial intelligence (AI) clearly has potential in medical image recognition, but its role in orthopaedic implant identification currently remains uncertain. This study compared the performance of an openly available AI model, ChatGPT 5, with that of experienced hand consultants. Methods Fifty-two radiographs of distal radius plates from 10 major implant manufacturers were obtained from open-access sources. An AI programme (ChatGPT 5) and five hand consultants independently identified the manufacturer for each radiograph. Accuracy was calculated for each rater. Pairwise comparisons between AI and each consultant were assessed using McNemar's test, and a standard logistic regression with clustered standard errors was fitted to compare AI with consultants as a group. Results ChatGPT5 correctly identified just 3 of 52 radiographs (5.8% accuracy). Consultant accuracies ranged between 13.5 and 46.2% (mean 30.8% ± 11.1). McNemar's test showed that Consultants 1, 3, 4 and 5 significantly outperformed the AI (p < 0.01), while Consultant 2 did not (p = 0.289). In a standard logistic regression with clustered standard errors, the human cohort had 7.26 times higher odds of correct identification compared with the AI (OR 7.26, 95% CI 2.27-23.18, p < 0.001). Conclusion Identifying volar locking distal radius plates from plain radiographs remains difficult, even for experienced surgeons and even the 'best' consultant identified under 50% correctly. That notwithstanding, humans were on average seven times better than ChatGPT 5 which only identified just over 5% correctly. While current non-specialised AI tools are not suitable for implant identification currently, dedicated AI models trained on curated orthopaedic datasets may hold promise for future clinical use.
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.