ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Integration of detection and tracking networks for automated rib multiplanar reconstruction: a feasibility study for fracture diagnosis.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
Abstract
objectiveRib fractures are common yet time-consuming to diagnose. This study explores automation via multiplanar reconstruction and intelligent detection algorithms to accelerate and optimize clinical assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective study was conducted with data from consecutive three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) examinations of the ribs in 230 patients (137 males), aged 51.7 ± 13.0 years (mean ± standard deviation). Object detection with tracking algorithms and integrated evaluation functions was applied to construct the automatic multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) system. Two readers independently conducted evaluations using automatic multiplanar reconstructions, curved surface reconstructions (CSR), and 3D reconstructions. Results were compared to a reference standard (RS) created by two senior radiologists.
resultsOf 5,520 ribs analyzed, 1,065 (19.3%) were positive at RS. Using automatic MPR, overall 85.4% sensitivity (910/1,065) (95% confidence interval 83.2‒87.5%) and 98.9% specificity (4,406/4,445) (95% CI: 98.5‒99.2%) were obtained. The performance of original CT, CSR, and 3D images was: sensitivity 94.2%, 79.4%, and 58.2%; and specificities 99.6%, 96.2%, and 99.2%, respectively. Reading time decreased by approximately 75% from 159.3 ± 50.5 s using original CT images to 41.2 ± 6.6 s using MPR.
conclusionThe automatic MPR system offered an accurate solution for diagnosing rib lesions, reducing the reading time. While superior to CSR and 3D reconstructions, automatic MPR should be regarded as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, original CT images in its current form. Future research expanding datasets, exploring different clinical scenarios, and enhancing training for younger physicians is expected. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Automatic MPR significantly improves rib fracture diagnosis speed and accuracy, reducing evaluation time by 75%. This artificial intelligence system enhances radiologist performance and promises broader clinical integration in trauma care and emergency imaging workflows. KEY POINTS: Over 5,500 ribs were analyzed, with 1,065 (19.3%) positive at the reference standard created by two senior radiologists. Using automatic MPR, overall 85.4% sensitivity and 98.9% specificity were obtained. The reading time decreased by approximately 75% from 159.3 ± 50.5 s using original CT images to 41.2 ± 6.6 s using MPR.
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.