ReviewSkeletal radiology2026
AI-enhanced routine CT for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and risk assessment.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporosis-related fractures create a large and often preventable burden, yet many individuals undergoing CT for unrelated care do not receive skeletal assessment. This review evaluates artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled use of routine CT for opportunistic case-finding and risk assessment, with emphasis on the boundary between promising retrospective performance and safe clinical implementation. Automated vertebral segmentation and CT-derived bone-density estimation can reduce manual workload, and published diagnostic studies report high discrimination in selected cohorts. However, pooled estimates are heterogeneous because the reference standard, anatomical target, CT acquisition, reconstruction, contrast status, calibration method, prevalence, and validation design differ substantially across studies. These differences preclude a universal CT threshold or a universal minimum detector-row requirement; detector-row configuration should be considered together with the broader acquisition and reconstruction parameters. For implementation, AI should be deployed as a validated triage tool-not as a stand-alone diagnostic replacement for clinical assessment and indicated DXA/QCT. A credible pathway requires a defined CT-protocol eligibility check; pre-specified vertebral region of interest and exclusions; protocol- and contrast-aware quantification; scanner-specific quality assurance and calibration monitoring where applicable; external validation in representative populations; and an explicit route from an AI alert to confirmatory testing and treatment evaluation. AI may also enable concurrent vertebral-fracture and body-composition assessment, but clinical utility must be shown through downstream testing, treatment, fracture, workload, equity, and cost outcomes. The near-term priority is therefore not higher retrospective diagnostic performance alone, but reproducible, transparent, and prospectively evaluated integration into radiology workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42881278What 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.