ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
AI detection of knee joint effusion from radiographs: Comparative accuracy of two commercial algorithms.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Knee joint effusion might indicate injury even without bony changes. Automated detection from radiographs could improve the sensitivity of AI algorithms. Purpose: To compare two commercially available AI algorithms, BoneView and RBfracture, in detecting knee joint effusion. Material and Methods: This retrospective study collected 123 lateral knee radiographs. Detection of knee joint effusion by both AI algorithms was compared with two board-certified radiologists with arbitration. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and interobserver agreement (Cohen's Kappa) were calculated. 95% confidence intervals (CI) assessed robustness. McNemar's tests compared sensitivity and specificity between AI algorithms. Results: Knee joint effusion was present in 56% of radiographs. BoneView demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI: 0.31-0.54), specificity of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00), PPV of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.88-1.00), NPV of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.47-0.67), and accuracy of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.59-0.75). RBfracture demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64-0.84), specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.80-0.96), PPV of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.81-0.96), NPV of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.83), and accuracy of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.88). Cohen's Kappa was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.35-0.63), indicating moderate agreement between the two AI algorithms. Adding knee joint effusion detection to fracture/dislocation predictions improved sensitivity. Conclusions: Two commercially available AI algorithms demonstrated different operating points for knee joint effusion detection: BoneView achieved high specificity, while RBfracture achieved higher sensitivity. Combining injury and effusion predictions increased sensitivity at the cost of specificity.
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.