ArticleBone & joint research2026
Diagnosing orthopaedic infection by identifying neutrophils in whole histology slide images with machine learning trained on publicly available datasets.
Article in Bone & joint research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study examines the ability of YOLO (You Only Look Once) 11x, a widely used and state of the art object detection model, trained on publicly available datasets, to identify and count neutrophils in tissue samples taken at prosthetic joint revision surgery, with the objective of automating a laborious but necessary part of the diagnostic workup for periprosthetic joint infection. Methods: Three datasets containing blood film microscopic slides with neutrophils were downloaded, combined, and labelled. The resulting dataset of 3,923 images was augmented with ten additional histological slides from periprosthetic tissue, taken at the time of revision surgery (5 infected, 5 sterile), and split into training (70%), validation (20%), and test (10%) sets. The dataset was used to train YOLO 11x object detection model optimized for a mean average precision above 50%. The trained network was tested on a ground truth specimen and histological whole slide images from 19 additional cases, previously unseen by the model, for validation. The threshold for diagnosis of infection on histological sections was set at more than five neutrophils per 0.2 mm Results: The model performed well as ground truth image returned precision at 82%, recall (sensitivity) 79%, and F1 harmonic mean 80%. When assessed against formal histopathological, microbiological, and multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis, precision was 78%, 80%, and 90%; recall 78%, 89%, and 82%; and F1 score 78%, 84%, and 86%, respectively. Against the definitive MDT diagnosis, our model identified nine out of the ten infected cases and excluded seven out of nine cases that were not infected. Conclusion: This study demonstrates ability of the trained model to identify neutrophils in tissue taken at revision surgery and could assist in diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. Further work is needed to improve confidence in the identifications and diagnostic accuracy of periprosthetic infection.
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.