Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Artificial intelligence-based detection of paediatric appendicular skeletal fractures: performance and limitations for common fracture types and locations
31
Zitationen
8
Autoren
2023
Jahr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research into artificial intelligence (AI)-based fracture detection in children is scarce and has disregarded the detection of indirect fracture signs and dislocations. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of an existing AI-tool for the detection of fractures, indirect fracture signs, and dislocations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An AI software, BoneView (Gleamer, Paris, France), was assessed for diagnostic accuracy of fracture detection using paediatric radiology consensus diagnoses as reference. Radiographs from a single emergency department were enrolled retrospectively going back from December 2021, limited to 1,000 radiographs per body part. Enrolment criteria were as follows: suspected fractures of the forearm, lower leg, or elbow; age 0-18 years; and radiographs in at least two projections. RESULTS: Lower leg radiographs showed 607 fractures. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were high (87.5%, 87.5%, 98.3%, 98.3%, respectively). Detection rate was low for toddler's fractures, trampoline fractures, and proximal tibial Salter-Harris-II fractures. Forearm radiographs showed 1,137 fractures. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were high (92.9%, 98.1%, 98.4%, 91.7%, respectively). Radial and ulnar bowing fractures were not reliably detected (one out of 11 radial bowing fractures and zero out of seven ulnar bowing fractures were correctly detected). Detection rate was low for styloid process avulsions, proximal radial buckle, and complete olecranon fractures. Elbow radiographs showed 517 fractures. Sensitivity and NPV were moderate (80.5%, 84.7%, respectively). Specificity and PPV were high (94.9%, 93.3%, respectively). For joint effusion, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were moderate (85.1%, 85.7%, 89.5%, 80%, respectively). For elbow dislocations, sensitivity and PPV were low (65.8%, 50%, respectively). Specificity and NPV were high (97.7%, 98.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic performance of BoneView is promising for forearm and lower leg fractures. However, improvement is mandatory before clinicians can rely solely on AI-based paediatric fracture detection using this software.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.764 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.674 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 8.234 Zit.
BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining
2019 · 6.898 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.