ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for spinopelvic parameters in standing total spine X-ray and limitations after fusion surgery.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of a commercial deep learning algorithm in measuring spinopelvic parameters on full spine radiographs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed total spine X-rays from a clinical cohort, assessing spinopelvic parameters (coronal Cobb angle, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, sagittal vertical axis). Measurements were performed by clinical radiologists, a trained research reader serving as ground truth, and a commercial AI software. Inter-rater reliability was determined via intraclass correlation coefficients between an orthopedic surgeon and the trained reader (n = 50 images). Performance of both the AI and radiologists was statistically compared to the ground truth using mean absolute error, intraclass correlation coefficients, the Spearman correlation, and diagnostic accuracy metrics (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values).
resultsFour hundred ninety-five radiographs were analyzed. Inter-rater reliability between human raters, assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients, was excellent (0.94-1). Agreement between the algorithm and ground truth, also assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients, was good to excellent (0.79-0.99), except for lumbar lordosis (0.68, moderate). Mean absolute errors were lowest for coronal Cobb angles (4,6°; 95% confidence interval = 3.6-5.5°) and highest for lumbar lordosis (8.1°; 95% confidence interval = 6.9-9.3°). The Spearman rank correlations ranged from 0.74 to 0.99, and sensitivity was moderate to excellent (72.6-94.8). These results closely matched those obtained when comparing radiologists to ground truth. In a subgroup of patients with prior spinal fusion surgery, the correlation between the algorithm predictions and the ground truth was reduced, and measurement deviations were higher compared to non-instrumented patients.
conclusionThe commercial AI software predicted most spinopelvic parameters with good reliability and accuracy, coinciding with radiologists in clinical practice, however, showed limitations in patients with spinal instrumentation.
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.