ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Applications and performance of imaging artificial intelligence in detecting and staging avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of imaging artificial intelligence (AI) models for detecting avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVNFH) and to examine whether diagnostic performance differs according to imaging modality, disease-stage focus, and validation strategy. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn accordance with PRISMA-DTA, we conducted a systematic search in four main databases. Two independent reviewers evaluated the studies, extracted relevant data, and assessed the quality following the QUADAS-2 criteria. The primary analysis pooled overall sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model. Prespecified subgroup analyses assessed differences by imaging modality, disease stage focus, and evaluation strategy.
resultsNine selected estimates contributed to the primary analysis of binary AVNFH detection. Pooled sensitivity was 0.888 (95% CI, 0.789-0.944), specificity was 0.937 (95% CI, 0.906-0.958), and SROC AUC was 0.967. MRI-based estimates showed higher sensitivity than radiography-based estimates in the study-level comparison (p = 0.027). No significant subgroup differences were found by disease-stage focus and validation strategy (all p > 0.05). Only five external test-set estimates contributed to the primary analysis; subgroup comparisons had limited precision.
conclusionImaging AI models showed promising accuracy for AVNFH detection in research datasets. However, risk of bias, between-study heterogeneity, and limited external testing restrict confidence in their clinical applicability. Prospective, multicenter validation and evaluation of clinical benefit are needed before routine implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42829377What 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.