ReviewOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2026
From underdiagnosis to scalable screening: Applications of artificial intelligence for vertebral compression fracture detection - a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance.
Review in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 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
Objectives: Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are common and often missed on routine imaging. We systematically reviewed the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) for VCF detection. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 and PROSPERO registration by searching Ovid Medline, Embase, and Central from January 1, 2020, to November 18, 2025, for studies using AI models for VCF detection and diagnosis. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2. Studies with complete 2 × 2 data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, with subgroup analyses by modality. Results: Fifty-one studies were included. Thirty-seven contributed to meta-analysis with around 259 190 participants and 45,346 VCF patients. Original radiology reports missed > 50% of incidental VCFs in many cohorts (up to 81%). The overall sensitivity of AI-assisted VCF detection was 85.0% (95% CI 84.2%-85.7%) and specificity 94.6% (95% CI 92.8%-95.9%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 15.4 and 0.16. At 22% pre-test probability, post-test probability was 77.7% after a positive AI result and 4.1% after a negative result. CT-based AI models performed best (sensitivity: 88.0%, specificity: 97.5%), while X-ray-based AI models showed lower sensitivity (79.2%) with high specificity (95.1%). Conclusions: AI models demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for VCF detection, particularly in CT imaging. However, improved detection alone does not ensure better outcomes, as substantial treatment gaps persist. The clinical impact of AI depends on rigorous prospective external validation and integration into structured osteoporosis care pathways, linking automated identification to timely evaluation and secondary fracture prevention.
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.