ArticleScientific reports2026
Automated measurement of hallux valgus angles using a deep learning model: validation and comparison with surgeons of varying expertise.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Abstract
Hallux valgus (HV) assessment commonly relies on measuring the hallux valgus angle (HVA) and intermetatarsal angle (IMA) on weight-bearing radiographs. Manual measurement is time-consuming and subject to intra- and inter-observer variability. Deep learning (DL) methods may automate angle measurement with high accuracy, but prior studies often lacked control groups and comparisons across surgeon experience levels. We developed a DL model based on UNet++ with a MobileNetV2 backbone to segment bone axes, followed by a linear regression module to predict HVA and IMA. The dataset comprised 2,468 weight-bearing radiographs (1,920 HV; 548 control) from 2,124 participants. Performance metrics included mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and outlier rates; model results were compared with measurements from two foot and ankle surgeons of differing experience. In the HV group, the model achieved ICCs of 0.902 for HVA and 0.887 for IMA; in the control group, ICCs were 0.821 (HVA) and 0.898 (IMA). For IMA, the model demonstrated lower MAE and fewer outliers than the surgeons (HV outliers 4.6% vs. 6.6-7.9%; control 4.8% vs. 6.0-9.5%). Average measurement time was 0.13 s per radiograph for the model versus 1.8-2.6 min manually. The proposed DL model automates HVA and IMA measurement with accuracy and reliability comparable to experienced surgeons while markedly improving efficiency. The model also showed consistent performance across HV and control radiographs in our cohort, supporting potential clinical application pending external validation.
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.