ArticleEFORT open reviews2026
Machine and deep learning models for ligament injury recognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging and novel diagnostic techniques.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Diagnosing ligament injuries remains a challenge for musculoskeletal clinicians due to the lack of standardized classification, evaluation, and management protocols. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models offer potential to improve diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of various ML and DL models in identifying ligament injuries across different medical imaging modalities. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Searches were performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool and Robvis software. Diagnostic performance measures - true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative - were analyzed. A random-effects model was applied, and heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were conducted. Statistical and graphical analyses were performed using R. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025646317). Results: Fifty-nine ML and DL algorithms from 23 studies were analyzed. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.890 (95% CI: 0.829-0.938) and 0.926 (95% CI: 0.820-0.959), respectively. Pooled estimates for PLR, NLR, lnDOR, and AUC were 1,644.37 (95% CI: 73.56-3,215.18), 0.179 (95% CI: 0.095-0.263), 4.130 (95% CI: 3.570-4.700), and 95%, respectively, with P < 0.001. Conclusion: ML and DL models demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy in detecting ligament injuries. Their strong performance supports ongoing integration into clinical practice, offering valuable support for musculoskeletal specialists in image interpretation and diagnosis.
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.