Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42301372›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026

The AI implementation gap in trauma radiography: standalone versus discretionary AI-integrated fracture detection.

Anna Gurabi, Sirus S Hosseini-Begtary, Peter Hegedus, Andor Viktor Gal, Pal Maurovich-Horvat, Nikolett Marton

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anna Gurabi *Department of Radiology, Clinic for Medical Imaging, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1613-7093
Sirus S Hosseini-Begtary *Department of Radiology, Clinic for Medical Imaging, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-3677-466X
Peter HegedusDepartment of Radiology, Clinic for Medical Imaging, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Andor Viktor GalDepartment of Neuroradiology, Clinic for Medical Imaging, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Pal Maurovich-HorvatDepartment of Radiology, Clinic for Medical Imaging, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0885-736X
Nikolett MartonDepartment of Radiology, Clinic for Medical Imaging, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. marton.nikolett@semmelweis.hu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7351-6361

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn emergency trauma care, artificial intelligence (AI) may aid fracture detection on radiographs, potentially reducing radiologists' workload. We evaluated the role of deep learning-based decision-support software in the reporting of trauma cases. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 2317 trauma radiographs acquired at a single center: 1,174 images obtained from November 1 to 16, 2023, without access to the AI tool during reporting, and 1,143 images from February 1 to 13, 2024, with discretionary use of the AI output during reporting. The AI software output was compared with final radiology reports, with ground truth established by a musculoskeletal radiologist with 9 years' experience. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated at both the fracture and patient levels.

resultsThe dataset included 1,914 patients with 1,188 acute fractures (621 in November, 567 in February). At the fracture level, standalone AI achieved 90.7% accuracy, 87.8% sensitivity, 94.0% specificity, 94.3% PPV, and 87.2% NPV in November, 94.1%, 93.5%, 94.6%, 94.5%, and 93.6% in February, respectively. Non-AI-assisted radiologists reached 92.4%, 89.0%, 96.2%, 96.3%, and 88.7%, AI-assisted radiologists 93.4%, 90.0%, 96.7%, 96.4%, and 90.7%, respectively. At the patient level, AI's overall performance reached up to 96.5% accuracy and 95.6% sensitivity. Discrepancies between AI and radiologists occurred in 326 cases, often related to anatomical variants such as accessory ossicles.

conclusionStandalone AI demonstrated near-expert accuracy and sensitivity in fracture detection at both fracture and patient levels. PPV increased with AI support, indicating more accurate detection of actual fractures. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By examining discretionary real-world use of AI in trauma radiography, this study shows that clinical benefit is not guaranteed by algorithmic performance alone, as optional AI integration does not consistently improve radiologist sensitivity, underscoring a critical implementation gap in practice. KEY POINTS: Standalone AI achieves near-expert fracture detection performance in trauma radiography. Discretionary AI use does not consistently improve radiologist sensitivity. AI use reduces discrepancies, suggesting improved diagnostic consistency. Clinical benefit of AI depends on real-world implementation strategy.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceFractures, BoneRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiographyAdultAgedFemaleHumansIntelligent SystemsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityArtificial intelligenceDeep learningEmergency medicineFractures (bone)Radiography

Identifiers

PMID42301372
PMCPMC13272699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.