Deep learning applications in orthopaedics: a systematic review and future directions.

Acta ortopedica mexicana Pub Date : 2025-05-01
R González-Pola, A Herrera-Lozano, L F Graham-Nieto, G Zermeño-García
{"title":"Deep learning applications in orthopaedics: a systematic review and future directions.","authors":"R González-Pola, A Herrera-Lozano, L F Graham-Nieto, G Zermeño-García","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>artificial intelligence and deep learning in orthopedics have gained mass interest in recent years. In prior studies, researchers have demonstrated different applications, from radiographic assessment to bone tumor diagnosis. The purpose of this review is to analyze the current literature on AI and deep learning tools to identify the most used tools in the risk assessment, outcome assessment, imaging, and basic science fields.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar from January 2020 up to October 31st, 2023. We identified 862 studies, 595 of which were included in the systematic review. A total of 281 studies about radiographic assessment, 102 about spine-oriented surgery, 95 about outcome assessment, 84 about fundamental AI orthopedic education, and 33 basic science applications were included. Primary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, study design and reporting standards reported in the literature. Estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>53 different imaging methods were used to measure radiographic aspects. A total of 185 different machine learning algorithms were used, with the convolutional neural network architecture being the most common (73%). To improve diagnostic accuracy and speed were the most commonly achieved results (62%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>heterogeneity was high among the studies, and extensive variation in methodology, terminology and outcome measures was noted. This can lead to an overestimation of the diagnostic accuracy of DL algorithms for medical imaging. There is an immediate need for the development of artificial intelligence-specific guidelines to provide guidance around key issues in this field.</p>","PeriodicalId":101296,"journal":{"name":"Acta ortopedica mexicana","volume":"39 3","pages":"152-163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta ortopedica mexicana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: artificial intelligence and deep learning in orthopedics have gained mass interest in recent years. In prior studies, researchers have demonstrated different applications, from radiographic assessment to bone tumor diagnosis. The purpose of this review is to analyze the current literature on AI and deep learning tools to identify the most used tools in the risk assessment, outcome assessment, imaging, and basic science fields.

Material and methods: searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar from January 2020 up to October 31st, 2023. We identified 862 studies, 595 of which were included in the systematic review. A total of 281 studies about radiographic assessment, 102 about spine-oriented surgery, 95 about outcome assessment, 84 about fundamental AI orthopedic education, and 33 basic science applications were included. Primary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, study design and reporting standards reported in the literature. Estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.

Results: 53 different imaging methods were used to measure radiographic aspects. A total of 185 different machine learning algorithms were used, with the convolutional neural network architecture being the most common (73%). To improve diagnostic accuracy and speed were the most commonly achieved results (62%).

Conclusion: heterogeneity was high among the studies, and extensive variation in methodology, terminology and outcome measures was noted. This can lead to an overestimation of the diagnostic accuracy of DL algorithms for medical imaging. There is an immediate need for the development of artificial intelligence-specific guidelines to provide guidance around key issues in this field.

深度学习在骨科中的应用:系统回顾和未来方向。
导读:近年来,人工智能和深度学习在骨科领域引起了广泛的关注。在之前的研究中,研究人员已经展示了不同的应用,从放射学评估到骨肿瘤诊断。本综述的目的是分析当前关于人工智能和深度学习工具的文献,以确定在风险评估、结果评估、成像和基础科学领域最常用的工具。材料和方法:检索于2020年1月至2023年10月31日在PubMed、EMBASE和谷歌Scholar中进行。我们确定了862项研究,其中595项纳入了系统评价。其中放射学评价研究281篇,脊柱外科102篇,结局评价研究95篇,人工智能骨科基础教育84篇,基础科学应用研究33篇。主要结局是诊断准确性、研究设计和文献报道的报告标准。使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总估计。结果:使用53种不同的成像方法测量放射学方面。总共使用了185种不同的机器学习算法,其中卷积神经网络架构是最常见的(73%)。提高诊断的准确性和速度是最常见的结果(62%)。结论:研究的异质性很高,在方法、术语和结果测量方面存在广泛的差异。这可能导致高估DL算法在医学成像中的诊断准确性。迫切需要制定针对人工智能的指南,以围绕该领域的关键问题提供指导。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信