ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Evaluating artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of hip fractures: an analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy.
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
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of Milvue SmartUrgences AI software for detecting hip fractures on radiographs obtained in the emergency department (ED).
methodsThis retrospective diagnostic accuracy study included consecutive patients aged ≥ 60 years undergoing hip and pelvis radiography at two EDs between June 2023 and September 2024. The index test was Milvue SmartUrgences, which classified radiographs as "YES," "NO," or "DOUBT." The reference standard was established by a consensus panel of three musculoskeletal radiologists and two senior orthopaedic trauma surgeons, blinded to AI output. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and F1-score were calculated. The primary analysis included patients with definitive "YES" or "NO" classifications; "DOUBT" classifications were evaluated separately.
resultsAmong 539 included patients, 487 received definitive AI classifications and were included in the primary analysis. The mean age was 83.4 years (SD 8.4), and 66% were female. The reference standard identified 191 hip fractures. Sensitivity was 97.4% (95% CI 94.0-98.9), and specificity was 86.5% (95% CI 82.1-89.9). PPV was 82.3% (95% CI 76.8-86.7), NPV 98.1% (95% CI 95.6-99.2), and accuracy 90.8% (95% CI 87.9-93.0). The F1-score was 89.2%.
conclusionsMilvue SmartUrgences demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive value for hip fracture detection in a consecutive emergency department cohort. The software may provide useful decision support during acute radiographic assessment, but AI output should complement rather than replace clinical and radiological assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42736479What 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.