Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42829377›Full record

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.

Peyman Mirghaderi, Nasim Eshraghi, Hyun Su Kim, Chankue Park, Navid Faraji, Majid Chalian, Peter C Thurlow

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Peyman Mirghaderi *Department of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. peymanm@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3522-8772
Nasim Eshraghi *Department of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Hyun Su KimDepartment of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Chankue ParkDepartment of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Navid FarajiDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Majid ChalianDepartment of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Peter C ThurlowDepartment of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging and Intervention, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. pthurlow@uw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceDiagnostic performanceHipMeta-analysisOsteonecrosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.