Mir Sadat-Ali, Bandar A Alzahrani, Turki S Alqahtani, Musaad A Alotaibi, Abdallah M Alhalafi, Ahmed A Alsousi, Abdullah M Alasiri
{"title":"人工智能预测骨质疏松性骨折的准确性与双能x线吸收仪和骨折风险评估工具的比较:系统综述。","authors":"Mir Sadat-Ali, Bandar A Alzahrani, Turki S Alqahtani, Musaad A Alotaibi, Abdallah M Alhalafi, Ahmed A Alsousi, Abdullah M Alasiri","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v16.i4.103572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Osteoporotic fractures, whether due to postmenopausal or senile causes, impose a significant financial burden on developing countries and diminish quality of life. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have demonstrated immense potential in predicting osteoporotic fractures.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess and compare the efficacy of AI models against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in predicting fragility fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a literature search in English using electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, for studies published until May 2024. The keywords employed were fragility fractures, osteoporosis, AI, deep learning, machine learning, and convolutional neural network. The inclusion criteria for selecting publications were based on studies involving patients with proximal femur and vertebral column fractures due to osteoporosis, utilizing AI algorithms, and analyzing the site of fracture and accuracy for predicting fracture risk using SPSS version 29 (Chicago, IL, United States).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 156 publications for analysis. After applying our inclusion criteria, 24489 patients were analyzed from 13 studies. The mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.925 ± 0.69. The mean sensitivity was 68.3% ± 15.3%, specificity was 85.5% ± 13.4%, and positive predictive value was 86.5% ± 6.3%. DXA showed a sensitivity of 37.0% and 74.0%, while FRAX demonstrated a sensitivity of 45.7% and 84.7%. The <i>P</i> value for sensitivity between DXA and AI was < 0.0001, while for FRAX it was < 0.0001 and 0.2.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review found that AI is a valuable tool to analyze and identify patients who will suffer from fragility fractures before they occur, demonstrating superiority over DXA and FRAX. Further studies are necessary to be conducted across various centers with diverse population groups, larger datasets, and a longer duration of follow-up to enhance the predictive performance of the AI models before their universal application.</p>","PeriodicalId":47843,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":"16 4","pages":"103572"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12019139/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of artificial intelligence in prediction of osteoporotic fractures in comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Mir Sadat-Ali, Bandar A Alzahrani, Turki S Alqahtani, Musaad A Alotaibi, Abdallah M Alhalafi, Ahmed A Alsousi, Abdullah M Alasiri\",\"doi\":\"10.5312/wjo.v16.i4.103572\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Osteoporotic fractures, whether due to postmenopausal or senile causes, impose a significant financial burden on developing countries and diminish quality of life. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have demonstrated immense potential in predicting osteoporotic fractures.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess and compare the efficacy of AI models against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in predicting fragility fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a literature search in English using electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, for studies published until May 2024. The keywords employed were fragility fractures, osteoporosis, AI, deep learning, machine learning, and convolutional neural network. The inclusion criteria for selecting publications were based on studies involving patients with proximal femur and vertebral column fractures due to osteoporosis, utilizing AI algorithms, and analyzing the site of fracture and accuracy for predicting fracture risk using SPSS version 29 (Chicago, IL, United States).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 156 publications for analysis. After applying our inclusion criteria, 24489 patients were analyzed from 13 studies. The mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.925 ± 0.69. The mean sensitivity was 68.3% ± 15.3%, specificity was 85.5% ± 13.4%, and positive predictive value was 86.5% ± 6.3%. DXA showed a sensitivity of 37.0% and 74.0%, while FRAX demonstrated a sensitivity of 45.7% and 84.7%. The <i>P</i> value for sensitivity between DXA and AI was < 0.0001, while for FRAX it was < 0.0001 and 0.2.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review found that AI is a valuable tool to analyze and identify patients who will suffer from fragility fractures before they occur, demonstrating superiority over DXA and FRAX. Further studies are necessary to be conducted across various centers with diverse population groups, larger datasets, and a longer duration of follow-up to enhance the predictive performance of the AI models before their universal application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"103572\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12019139/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i4.103572\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i4.103572","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
摘要
背景:骨质疏松性骨折,无论是由于绝经后还是老年原因,给发展中国家带来了巨大的经济负担,并降低了生活质量。人工智能(AI)算法的最新进展在预测骨质疏松性骨折方面显示出巨大的潜力。目的:评估和比较AI模型与双能x线吸收仪(DXA)和骨折风险评估工具(FRAX)预测脆性骨折的疗效。方法:我们使用PubMed、Web of Science和Scopus等电子数据库进行英文文献检索,检索截止到2024年5月发表的研究。关键词:脆性骨折、骨质疏松症、人工智能、深度学习、机器学习、卷积神经网络。选择出版物的纳入标准是基于涉及骨质疏松导致股骨近端和脊柱骨折患者的研究,利用人工智能算法,并使用SPSS version 29 (Chicago, IL, United States)分析骨折部位和预测骨折风险的准确性。结果:我们确定了156篇出版物进行分析。应用我们的纳入标准后,分析了来自13项研究的24489例患者。受试者工作特征曲线下的平均面积为0.925±0.69。平均敏感性68.3%±15.3%,特异性85.5%±13.4%,阳性预测值86.5%±6.3%。DXA的灵敏度分别为37.0%和74.0%,FRAX的灵敏度分别为45.7%和84.7%。DXA和AI敏感性的P值< 0.0001,而FRAX的P值分别< 0.0001和0.2。结论:本综述发现AI是一种有价值的工具,可以在脆性骨折发生前分析和识别患者,具有优于DXA和FRAX的优势。进一步的研究需要在不同的中心进行,不同的人群,更大的数据集,更长的随访时间,以提高人工智能模型在普遍应用之前的预测性能。
Accuracy of artificial intelligence in prediction of osteoporotic fractures in comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool: A systematic review.
Background: Osteoporotic fractures, whether due to postmenopausal or senile causes, impose a significant financial burden on developing countries and diminish quality of life. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have demonstrated immense potential in predicting osteoporotic fractures.
Aim: To assess and compare the efficacy of AI models against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in predicting fragility fractures.
Methods: We conducted a literature search in English using electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, for studies published until May 2024. The keywords employed were fragility fractures, osteoporosis, AI, deep learning, machine learning, and convolutional neural network. The inclusion criteria for selecting publications were based on studies involving patients with proximal femur and vertebral column fractures due to osteoporosis, utilizing AI algorithms, and analyzing the site of fracture and accuracy for predicting fracture risk using SPSS version 29 (Chicago, IL, United States).
Results: We identified 156 publications for analysis. After applying our inclusion criteria, 24489 patients were analyzed from 13 studies. The mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.925 ± 0.69. The mean sensitivity was 68.3% ± 15.3%, specificity was 85.5% ± 13.4%, and positive predictive value was 86.5% ± 6.3%. DXA showed a sensitivity of 37.0% and 74.0%, while FRAX demonstrated a sensitivity of 45.7% and 84.7%. The P value for sensitivity between DXA and AI was < 0.0001, while for FRAX it was < 0.0001 and 0.2.
Conclusion: This review found that AI is a valuable tool to analyze and identify patients who will suffer from fragility fractures before they occur, demonstrating superiority over DXA and FRAX. Further studies are necessary to be conducted across various centers with diverse population groups, larger datasets, and a longer duration of follow-up to enhance the predictive performance of the AI models before their universal application.