BoneView在x线片上的骨折人工智能辅助检测：系统综述

IF 3.2 3区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

European Journal of Radiology Pub Date : 2025-06-09 DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112230

Robert M. Kwee , Thomas C. Kwee

{"title":"BoneView在x线片上的骨折人工智能辅助检测：系统综述","authors":"Robert M. Kwee , Thomas C. Kwee","doi":"10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To systematically review the added value of the artificial intelligence tool BoneView in detecting fractures on radiographs.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Medline and Embase were searched for original studies that reported the diagnostic performance of human reading in detecting fractures on radiographs with and without BoneView. Study quality was assessed. Diagnostic accuracy data and reading speed were extracted.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eight studies were included. There was high risk of bias with respect to patient selection (5 studies), reference standard (1 study), and flow and timing (3 studies). There was high concern regarding the applicability of the execution of the index test in one study. Sensitivities and specificities were heterogeneous (p ≤ 0.0001). Sensitivity was significantly higher (p < 0.05) among the far majority of the readers in the included studies when radiographs were evaluated with BoneView. Specificities and diagnostic odds ratio results were mixed, with either no significant change or significant increase or decrease. Four studies assessed reporting time. In 3 studies, reading speed was faster with BoneView (mean of 5.3–15.7 s, p ≤ 0.046), whereas in one study there was no change (p = 0.12).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>BoneView appears to improve sensitivity, whereas the results regarding specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy are mixed. There are methodological quality concerns in the existing literature and further research is needed to explore causes of heterogeneity. The use of BoneView appears not to compromise reading speed and may even improve it.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12063,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 112230"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence-assisted detection of fractures on radiographs with BoneView: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Robert M. Kwee , Thomas C. Kwee\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To systematically review the added value of the artificial intelligence tool BoneView in detecting fractures on radiographs.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Medline and Embase were searched for original studies that reported the diagnostic performance of human reading in detecting fractures on radiographs with and without BoneView. Study quality was assessed. Diagnostic accuracy data and reading speed were extracted.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eight studies were included. There was high risk of bias with respect to patient selection (5 studies), reference standard (1 study), and flow and timing (3 studies). There was high concern regarding the applicability of the execution of the index test in one study. Sensitivities and specificities were heterogeneous (p ≤ 0.0001). Sensitivity was significantly higher (p < 0.05) among the far majority of the readers in the included studies when radiographs were evaluated with BoneView. Specificities and diagnostic odds ratio results were mixed, with either no significant change or significant increase or decrease. Four studies assessed reporting time. In 3 studies, reading speed was faster with BoneView (mean of 5.3–15.7 s, p ≤ 0.046), whereas in one study there was no change (p = 0.12).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>BoneView appears to improve sensitivity, whereas the results regarding specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy are mixed. There are methodological quality concerns in the existing literature and further research is needed to explore causes of heterogeneity. The use of BoneView appears not to compromise reading speed and may even improve it.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Radiology\",\"volume\":\"190 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112230\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X2500316X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X2500316X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的系统评价人工智能工具BoneView在x线片骨折检测中的附加价值。方法检索medline和Embase中报道human reading在有和没有BoneView的x线片上检测骨折诊断性能的原始研究。评估研究质量。提取诊断准确率数据和读取速度。结果共纳入8项研究。在患者选择（5项研究）、参考标准（1项研究）、流量和时间选择（3项研究）方面存在高偏倚风险。在一项研究中，人们高度关注执行指数测试的适用性。敏感性和特异性存在异质性（p≤0.0001）。敏感性显著提高(p <；0.05)，在纳入的研究中，当使用BoneView评估x线片时，绝大多数读者的评分都低于0.05。特异性和诊断优势比结果是混合的，要么没有显著变化，要么显著增加或减少。四项研究评估了报告时间。在3项研究中，BoneView的阅读速度更快（平均5.3-15.7 s, p≤0.046），而在1项研究中没有变化（p = 0.12）。结论boneview似乎提高了敏感性，但在特异性和总体诊断准确性方面的结果参差不齐。现有文献存在方法质量问题，需要进一步研究以探索异质性的原因。使用BoneView似乎不会影响阅读速度，甚至可能会提高阅读速度。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Artificial intelligence-assisted detection of fractures on radiographs with BoneView: a systematic review

Purpose

To systematically review the added value of the artificial intelligence tool BoneView in detecting fractures on radiographs.

Method

Medline and Embase were searched for original studies that reported the diagnostic performance of human reading in detecting fractures on radiographs with and without BoneView. Study quality was assessed. Diagnostic accuracy data and reading speed were extracted.

Results

Eight studies were included. There was high risk of bias with respect to patient selection (5 studies), reference standard (1 study), and flow and timing (3 studies). There was high concern regarding the applicability of the execution of the index test in one study. Sensitivities and specificities were heterogeneous (p ≤ 0.0001). Sensitivity was significantly higher (p < 0.05) among the far majority of the readers in the included studies when radiographs were evaluated with BoneView. Specificities and diagnostic odds ratio results were mixed, with either no significant change or significant increase or decrease. Four studies assessed reporting time. In 3 studies, reading speed was faster with BoneView (mean of 5.3–15.7 s, p ≤ 0.046), whereas in one study there was no change (p = 0.12).

Conclusion

BoneView appears to improve sensitivity, whereas the results regarding specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy are mixed. There are methodological quality concerns in the existing literature and further research is needed to explore causes of heterogeneity. The use of BoneView appears not to compromise reading speed and may even improve it.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

European Journal of Radiology 医学-核医学

CiteScore

6.70

自引率

3.00%

发文量

398

审稿时长

42 days

期刊介绍： European Journal of Radiology is an international journal which aims to communicate to its readers, state-of-the-art information on imaging developments in the form of high quality original research articles and timely reviews on current developments in the field. Its audience includes clinicians at all levels of training including radiology trainees, newly qualified imaging specialists and the experienced radiologist. Its aim is to inform efficient, appropriate and evidence-based imaging practice to the benefit of patients worldwide.