ArticleJournal of bone and mineral metabolism2026
Comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and lumbar radiographs using deep learning for osteoporosis diagnosis.
Article in Journal of bone and mineral metabolism, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOsteoporosis and osteopenia, characterized by reduced bone mineral density (BMD), increase fracture risk, particularly in older adults. Early detection is critical for preventing fractures and preserving quality of life. Variability in radiographic interpretation highlights the need for automated diagnostic approaches. This study evaluates whether deep learning (DL) analysis of lumbar radiographs can serve as an alternative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) for detecting osteopenia and osteoporosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, 1039 patients (aged 20-95 years, mean 64.99 ± 11.61) who underwent both DEXA and lumbar spine radiography within three months were included. BMD was classified using T-scores for adults over 50, including postmenopausal women and men, and Z-scores for younger participants. Lateral lumbar radiographs (L1-L4) were categorized as normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic according to DEXA results. Five pretrained transfer learning models (DenseNet-169, EfficientNet-B7, Inception-ResNetV2, ResNet-152V2, Xception) were used for feature extraction, with hyperparameters optimized using the Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) algorithm. Models were evaluated for both multiclass and binary classification tasks.
resultsIn multiclass classification, DenseNet169 achieved the highest test AUC of 0.81. In binary classification, Xception (AUC: 0.90) was most effective in distinguishing normal from osteopenia, while InceptionResNetV2 (accuracy: 90.08%) performed best in separating normal from osteoporosis.
conclusionsThese results suggest that DL analysis of lumbar radiographs, combined with transfer learning and metaheuristic optimization, may support BMD category classification as a complementary screening tool. This approach may provide a reliable, non-invasive, and accessible alternative to DEXA for osteoporosis screening and diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42663651What 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.