Artificial intelligence demonstrates potential to enhance orthopaedic imaging across multiple modalities: A systematic review

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Umile Giuseppe Longo, Alberto Lalli, Guido Nicodemi, Matteo Giuseppe Pisani, Alessandro De Sire, Pieter D'Hooghe, Ara Nazarian, Jacob F. Oeding, Balint Zsidai, Kristian Samuelsson
{"title":"Artificial intelligence demonstrates potential to enhance orthopaedic imaging across multiple modalities: A systematic review","authors":"Umile Giuseppe Longo,&nbsp;Alberto Lalli,&nbsp;Guido Nicodemi,&nbsp;Matteo Giuseppe Pisani,&nbsp;Alessandro De Sire,&nbsp;Pieter D'Hooghe,&nbsp;Ara Nazarian,&nbsp;Jacob F. Oeding,&nbsp;Balint Zsidai,&nbsp;Kristian Samuelsson","doi":"10.1002/jeo2.70259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>While several artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted medical imaging applications are reported in the recent orthopaedic literature, comparison of the clinical efficacy and utility of these applications is currently lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of AI applications in orthopaedic imaging, focusing on their impact on diagnostic accuracy, image segmentation and operational efficiency across various imaging modalities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Based on the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed, using combinations of keywords and MeSH descriptors ('AI', 'ML', 'deep learning', 'orthopaedic surgery' and 'imaging') from inception to March 2024. Included were studies published between September 2018 and February 2024, which evaluated machine learning (ML) model effectiveness in improving orthopaedic imaging. Studies with insufficient data regarding the output variable used to assess the reliability of the ML model, those applying deterministic algorithms, unrelated topics, protocol studies, and other systematic reviews were excluded from the final synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool were applied for the assessment of bias among the included studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The 53 included studies reported the use of 11.990.643 images from several diagnostic instruments. A total of 39 studies reported details in terms of the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), while both accuracy and sensitivity were documented across 15 studies. Precision was reported by 14, specificity by nine, and the F1 score by four of the included studies. Three studies applied the area under the curve (AUC) method to evaluate ML model performance. Among the studies included in the final synthesis, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) emerged as the most frequently applied category of ML models, present in 17 studies (32%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The systematic review highlights the diverse application of AI in orthopaedic imaging, demonstrating the capability of various machine learning models in accurately segmenting and analysing orthopaedic images. The results indicate that AI models achieve high performance metrics across different imaging modalities. However, the current body of literature lacks comprehensive statistical analysis and randomized controlled trials, underscoring the need for further research to validate these findings in clinical settings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of evidence</h3>\n \n <p>Systematic Review; Level of evidence IV.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeo2.70259","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeo2.70259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

While several artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted medical imaging applications are reported in the recent orthopaedic literature, comparison of the clinical efficacy and utility of these applications is currently lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of AI applications in orthopaedic imaging, focusing on their impact on diagnostic accuracy, image segmentation and operational efficiency across various imaging modalities.

Methods

Based on the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed, using combinations of keywords and MeSH descriptors ('AI', 'ML', 'deep learning', 'orthopaedic surgery' and 'imaging') from inception to March 2024. Included were studies published between September 2018 and February 2024, which evaluated machine learning (ML) model effectiveness in improving orthopaedic imaging. Studies with insufficient data regarding the output variable used to assess the reliability of the ML model, those applying deterministic algorithms, unrelated topics, protocol studies, and other systematic reviews were excluded from the final synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool were applied for the assessment of bias among the included studies.

Results

The 53 included studies reported the use of 11.990.643 images from several diagnostic instruments. A total of 39 studies reported details in terms of the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), while both accuracy and sensitivity were documented across 15 studies. Precision was reported by 14, specificity by nine, and the F1 score by four of the included studies. Three studies applied the area under the curve (AUC) method to evaluate ML model performance. Among the studies included in the final synthesis, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) emerged as the most frequently applied category of ML models, present in 17 studies (32%).

Conclusion

The systematic review highlights the diverse application of AI in orthopaedic imaging, demonstrating the capability of various machine learning models in accurately segmenting and analysing orthopaedic images. The results indicate that AI models achieve high performance metrics across different imaging modalities. However, the current body of literature lacks comprehensive statistical analysis and randomized controlled trials, underscoring the need for further research to validate these findings in clinical settings.

Level of evidence

Systematic Review; Level of evidence IV.

Abstract Image

人工智能展示了在多种模式下增强骨科成像的潜力:一项系统综述
虽然在最近的骨科文献中报道了一些人工智能(AI)辅助医学成像的应用,但目前缺乏对这些应用的临床疗效和实用性的比较。本系统综述的目的是评估人工智能应用在骨科成像中的有效性和可靠性,重点关注它们对各种成像模式的诊断准确性、图像分割和操作效率的影响。方法基于PRISMA指南,使用关键词和MeSH描述符(“AI”、“ML”、“deep learning”、“orthopaedic surgery”和“imaging”)组合对PubMed、Cochrane和Scopus数据库进行全面的文献检索,检索时间从成立到2024年3月。纳入了2018年9月至2024年2月期间发表的研究,这些研究评估了机器学习(ML)模型在改善骨科成像方面的有效性。用于评估机器学习模型可靠性的输出变量数据不足的研究、应用确定性算法的研究、不相关的主题、协议研究和其他系统评价被排除在最终综合之外。采用乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)关键评估工具和非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估纳入研究的偏倚。结果53篇纳入的研究报告使用了来自几种诊断仪器的11.990.643张图像。总共有39项研究报告了骰子相似系数(DSC)的细节,而准确性和敏感性在15项研究中都有记录。其中14项研究报告了精确性,9项报告了特异性,4项报告了F1评分。三项研究采用曲线下面积(AUC)方法评价ML模型的性能。在最终综合的研究中,卷积神经网络(CNN)成为最常用的ML模型类别,有17项研究(32%)。结论系统综述强调了人工智能在骨科成像中的多种应用,展示了各种机器学习模型在骨科图像准确分割和分析方面的能力。结果表明,人工智能模型在不同的成像模式下实现了高性能指标。然而,目前的文献缺乏全面的统计分析和随机对照试验,强调需要进一步的研究来验证这些发现在临床环境中。证据水平系统评价;证据等级IV。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信