Cargando…

Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Majority of research and commercial efforts have focussed on use of artificial intelligence (AI) for fracture detection in adults, despite the greater long-term clinical and medicolegal implications of missed fractures in children. The objective of this study was to assess the available...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shelmerdine, Susan C., White, Richard D., Liu, Hantao, Arthurs, Owen J., Sebire, Neil J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9166920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35657439
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01234-3
_version_ 1784720715617927168
author Shelmerdine, Susan C.
White, Richard D.
Liu, Hantao
Arthurs, Owen J.
Sebire, Neil J.
author_facet Shelmerdine, Susan C.
White, Richard D.
Liu, Hantao
Arthurs, Owen J.
Sebire, Neil J.
author_sort Shelmerdine, Susan C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Majority of research and commercial efforts have focussed on use of artificial intelligence (AI) for fracture detection in adults, despite the greater long-term clinical and medicolegal implications of missed fractures in children. The objective of this study was to assess the available literature regarding diagnostic performance of AI tools for paediatric fracture assessment on imaging, and where available, how this compares with the performance of human readers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies published between 1 January 2011 and 2021 using terms related to ‘fracture’, ‘artificial intelligence’, ‘imaging’ and ‘children’. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified QUADAS-2 tool. Descriptive statistics for diagnostic accuracies were collated. RESULTS: Nine eligible articles from 362 publications were included, with most (8/9) evaluating fracture detection on radiographs, with the elbow being the most common body part. Nearly all articles used data derived from a single institution, and used deep learning methodology with only a few (2/9) performing external validation. Accuracy rates generated by AI ranged from 88.8 to 97.9%. In two of the three articles where AI performance was compared to human readers, sensitivity rates for AI were marginally higher, but this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Wide heterogeneity in the literature with limited information on algorithm performance on external datasets makes it difficult to understand how such tools may generalise to a wider paediatric population. Further research using a multicentric dataset with real-world evaluation would help to better understand the impact of these tools. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-022-01234-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9166920
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91669202022-06-05 Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review Shelmerdine, Susan C. White, Richard D. Liu, Hantao Arthurs, Owen J. Sebire, Neil J. Insights Imaging Original Article BACKGROUND: Majority of research and commercial efforts have focussed on use of artificial intelligence (AI) for fracture detection in adults, despite the greater long-term clinical and medicolegal implications of missed fractures in children. The objective of this study was to assess the available literature regarding diagnostic performance of AI tools for paediatric fracture assessment on imaging, and where available, how this compares with the performance of human readers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies published between 1 January 2011 and 2021 using terms related to ‘fracture’, ‘artificial intelligence’, ‘imaging’ and ‘children’. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified QUADAS-2 tool. Descriptive statistics for diagnostic accuracies were collated. RESULTS: Nine eligible articles from 362 publications were included, with most (8/9) evaluating fracture detection on radiographs, with the elbow being the most common body part. Nearly all articles used data derived from a single institution, and used deep learning methodology with only a few (2/9) performing external validation. Accuracy rates generated by AI ranged from 88.8 to 97.9%. In two of the three articles where AI performance was compared to human readers, sensitivity rates for AI were marginally higher, but this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Wide heterogeneity in the literature with limited information on algorithm performance on external datasets makes it difficult to understand how such tools may generalise to a wider paediatric population. Further research using a multicentric dataset with real-world evaluation would help to better understand the impact of these tools. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-022-01234-3. Springer Vienna 2022-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9166920/ /pubmed/35657439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01234-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Shelmerdine, Susan C.
White, Richard D.
Liu, Hantao
Arthurs, Owen J.
Sebire, Neil J.
Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review
title Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review
title_full Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review
title_fullStr Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review
title_short Artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review
title_sort artificial intelligence for radiological paediatric fracture assessment: a systematic review
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9166920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35657439
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01234-3
work_keys_str_mv AT shelmerdinesusanc artificialintelligenceforradiologicalpaediatricfractureassessmentasystematicreview
AT whiterichardd artificialintelligenceforradiologicalpaediatricfractureassessmentasystematicreview
AT liuhantao artificialintelligenceforradiologicalpaediatricfractureassessmentasystematicreview
AT arthursowenj artificialintelligenceforradiologicalpaediatricfractureassessmentasystematicreview
AT sebireneilj artificialintelligenceforradiologicalpaediatricfractureassessmentasystematicreview