ReviewCureus2026
Role of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Diagnosing Knee Lesions: Where Are We Now?
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Deep-Learning-Based Reconstruction of Knee MRI with Conventional Sequences in Patients with Knee Pain.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Globally, knee lesions, including anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), menisci, cartilage, and osteoarthritis, are a major clinical burden. Clinical examination and medical imaging are key diagnostic methods, but they are inaccurate, inefficient, and rarely reproducible. Musculoskeletal imaging diagnostic precision and workflows may improve with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. To comprehensively review AI and ML applications for knee lesion diagnosis, compare their diagnostic performance to conventional methods, and identify key challenges and future clinical directions, a systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore for studies from 2015 to the present. Keywords included "artificial intelligence", "machine learning", "deep learning", "knee", "MRI", "diagnosis", and "lesion detection". Performance metrics, methodological rigor, and relevance to AI/ML knee lesion diagnosis were considered when selecting studies. Analyses included peer-reviewed articles and regulatory guidance. There were 14 AI/ML knee lesion diagnosis studies in the review. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were the most popular architecture, with ResNet, VGG, DenseNet, and custom architectures performing well. Deep learning models were accurate diagnostically. AI-assisted diagnosis excelled at ACL tear, osteoarthritis grading, and meniscal tear detection. AI systems outperformed radiologists in diagnostic accuracy, interpretation time, and inter-reader agreement. In many applications, AI and ML technologies can diagnose knee lesions with human-level accuracy. However, dataset diversity, model generalizability, regulatory approval, and clinical integration remain issues. Clinical deployment requires ongoing research on standardized protocols, diverse training datasets, and real-world 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.