ArticleScientific reports2026
Beyond the pelvic ring: benchmarking multi-bone segmentation for ROI-Guided fracture detection.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic fractures are critical injuries associated with high mortality rates, yet accurate diagnosis using conventional radiography remains challenging due to complex anatomical overlaps. This study evaluates the impact of segmentation-guided preprocessing on fracture detection from pelvic X-rays by introducing a Multi-Bone Segmentation Method. Unlike traditional approaches that restrict analysis to the pelvic ring or treat the pelvis as a single region, our framework utilizes a transformer-enhanced U-Net to distinctly isolate nine individual pelvic bones, creating an anatomically precise input for downstream classification. For segmentation, the model was trained on PXR150 and evaluated on both PXR150 and externally on AMERI PXR, while classification models were trained and evaluated separately for each dataset. We benchmarked this approach against three methods: a Conventional (raw X-ray input) baseline, a Conventional ROI-Guided Method (binary segmentation), and a Reference Segmentation (manual annotation) to establish a performance upper bound. Using the public PXR150 and private AMERI PXR datasets, we demonstrated that segmentation-guided analysis consistently enhances diagnostic precision. The Proposed Multi-Bone Method outperformed the Conventional ROI-Guided Method, achieving higher Accuracy (81.30%, 95% CI: 79.70-82.90 and 83.20%, 95% CI: 78.74-87.66) and AUROC (0.822, 95% CI: 0.794-0.851 and 0.838, 95% CI: 0.792-0.884) across both datasets. By effectively filtering non-anatomical artifacts, the multi-bone strategy achieved performance metrics close to the manually annotated reference standard. GradCAM visualizations further confirmed that multi-bone segmentation aligns model activation with clinically relevant fracture sites, enhancing interpretability. These findings underscore that anatomical completeness in segmentation is a decisive factor in improving the reliability and explainability of automated fracture detection systems.
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.