Diagnostic accuracy & clinical importance of AI confidence for extremity fracture detection: 2,508-patient retrospective cohort.

IF 1.2 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Sabine Morris Delhez, Thomas Breiner Enøe, Oke Gerke, Bjarke Viberg, Pia Iben Pietersen, Benjamin Schnack Brandt Rasmussen, Janni Jensen
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy & clinical importance of AI confidence for extremity fracture detection: 2,508-patient retrospective cohort.","authors":"Sabine Morris Delhez, Thomas Breiner Enøe, Oke Gerke, Bjarke Viberg, Pia Iben Pietersen, Benjamin Schnack Brandt Rasmussen, Janni Jensen","doi":"10.1007/s10140-026-02546-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To estimate diagnostic performance of a deep learning algorithm for extremity fracture detection on radiographs in patients aged ≥ 2 years using a refined reference standard. Secondary, to compare positive predictive value (PPV) by the algorithm's built-in confidence level (high vs. low) and diagnostic performance between adults (≥ 18 years) and children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective single-center study consecutively included patients with radiography of a suspected extremity fracture between January and December 2024. The index test was the algorithm output (bounding boxes with confidence). The reference standard was the radiology report with discordant cases adjudicated by follow-up imaging when available or specialist review. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals; differences were tested using the McNemar and a score test and patient-clustered logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 2,508 patients, median age 34 years (range 2-105), 1,236 males; 815 patients had a total of 1,028 fractures. Per-fracture sensitivity and PPV were 92.7% (95% CI: 90.9-94.5) and 87.6% (95% CI: 85.5-89.7); Specificity and NPV were 94.4% (95% CI: 93.2-95.4) and 96.6% (95% CI: 95.6-97.4). PPV for high-confidence was superior to low-confidence detections (99.1% vs 59.1%, p < 0.001). Children had higher per-fracture PPV than adults (91.7% vs. 86.1%; p= 0.01), with no significant difference in per-fracture sensitivity, or case-wise performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The algorithm showed good diagnostic performance for extremity fracture detection on radiographs. The AI's confidence stratification strongly influenced PPV, and higher PPV was seen among children.</p>","PeriodicalId":11623,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-026-02546-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate diagnostic performance of a deep learning algorithm for extremity fracture detection on radiographs in patients aged ≥ 2 years using a refined reference standard. Secondary, to compare positive predictive value (PPV) by the algorithm's built-in confidence level (high vs. low) and diagnostic performance between adults (≥ 18 years) and children.

Methods: This retrospective single-center study consecutively included patients with radiography of a suspected extremity fracture between January and December 2024. The index test was the algorithm output (bounding boxes with confidence). The reference standard was the radiology report with discordant cases adjudicated by follow-up imaging when available or specialist review. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals; differences were tested using the McNemar and a score test and patient-clustered logistic regression.

Results: There were 2,508 patients, median age 34 years (range 2-105), 1,236 males; 815 patients had a total of 1,028 fractures. Per-fracture sensitivity and PPV were 92.7% (95% CI: 90.9-94.5) and 87.6% (95% CI: 85.5-89.7); Specificity and NPV were 94.4% (95% CI: 93.2-95.4) and 96.6% (95% CI: 95.6-97.4). PPV for high-confidence was superior to low-confidence detections (99.1% vs 59.1%, p < 0.001). Children had higher per-fracture PPV than adults (91.7% vs. 86.1%; p= 0.01), with no significant difference in per-fracture sensitivity, or case-wise performance.

Conclusion: The algorithm showed good diagnostic performance for extremity fracture detection on radiographs. The AI's confidence stratification strongly influenced PPV, and higher PPV was seen among children.

人工智能置信度在四肢骨折检测中的诊断准确性和临床重要性:2508例患者回顾性队列。
目的:使用一种改进的参考标准,评估深度学习算法在2岁以上患者的x线片上四肢骨折检测的诊断性能。其次,比较算法内置置信度(高与低)的阳性预测值(PPV)和成人(≥18岁)与儿童的诊断性能。方法:本回顾性单中心研究连续纳入2024年1月至12月期间疑似四肢骨折的x线摄影患者。索引测试是算法输出(带置信度的边界框)。参考标准是不一致病例的放射学报告,当有随访成像或专家审查时裁定。以95%置信区间计算敏感性、特异性、PPV和阴性预测值(NPV);采用McNemar和评分检验以及患者聚类逻辑回归对差异进行检验。结果:2508例患者,中位年龄34岁(范围2 ~ 105岁),男性1236例;815例患者共发生1028处骨折。骨折前敏感性和PPV分别为92.7% (95% CI: 90.9-94.5)和87.6% (95% CI: 85.5-89.7);特异性和NPV分别为94.4% (95% CI: 93.2-95.4)和96.6% (95% CI: 95.6-97.4)。高置信度的PPV优于低置信度的PPV (99.1% vs 59.1%, p < 0.001)。儿童骨折后的PPV高于成人(91.7% vs. 86.1%, p= 0.01),但骨折后敏感性或病例表现无显著差异。结论:该算法对四肢骨折的x线片检测具有良好的诊断性能。人工智能的信心分层强烈影响PPV,儿童的PPV较高。
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
Emergency Radiology
Emergency Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
98
期刊介绍: To advance and improve the radiologic aspects of emergency careTo establish Emergency Radiology as an area of special interest in the field of diagnostic imagingTo improve methods of education in Emergency RadiologyTo provide, through formal meetings, a mechanism for presentation of scientific papers on various aspects of Emergency Radiology and continuing educationTo promote research in Emergency Radiology by clinical and basic science investigators, including residents and other traineesTo act as the resource body on Emergency Radiology for those interested in emergency patient care Members of the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) receive the Emergency Radiology journal as a benefit of membership!
×
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
小红书