Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Publication year range
1.
Ugeskr Laeger ; 185(51)2023 12 18.
Article in Danish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38105731

ABSTRACT

Traumatic fractures are often treated conservatively. Bone healing is a complex process and the complexities of a fracture, bone quality, treatment, and patient factors are all crucial. Routine X-rays and clinical follow-ups are a significant cost to society as well as exposing the patient to increased radiation and should only be performed if there is a risk of complications that may impact the treatment. It is difficult to assess on X-rays alone, whether there is sufficient bone healing and X-rays are therefore always recommended in conjunction with clinical examination.


Subject(s)
Fractures, Bone , Adult , Humans , Fractures, Bone/diagnostic imaging , Fractures, Bone/therapy , Radiography , Physical Examination , Fracture Healing
2.
Eur J Radiol ; 150: 110249, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35338955

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To externally validate an artificial intelligence (AI) tool for radiographic knee osteoarthritis severity classification on a clinical dataset. METHOD: This retrospective, consecutive patient sample, external validation study used weight-bearing, non-fixed-flexion posterior-anterior knee radiographs from a clinical production PACS. The index test was ordinal Kellgren-Lawrence grading by an AI tool, two musculoskeletal radiology consultants, two reporting technologists, and two resident radiologists. Grading was repeated by all readers after at least four weeks. Reference test was the consensus of the two consultants. The primary outcome was quadratic weighted kappa. Secondary outcomes were ordinal weighted accuracy, multiclass accuracy and F1-score. RESULTS: 50 consecutive patients between September 24, 2019 and October 22, 2019 were retrospectively included (3 excluded) totaling 99 knees (1 excluded). Quadratic weighted kappa for the AI tool and the consultant consensus was 0.88 CI95% (0.82-0.92). Agreement between the consultants was 0.89 CI95% (0.85-0.93). Intra-rater agreements for the consultants were 0.96 CI95% (0.94-0.98) and 0.94 CI95% (0.91-0.96) respectively. For the AI tool it was 1 CI95% (1-1). For the AI tool, ordinal weighted accuracy was 97.8% CI95% (96.9-98.6 %). Average multiclass accuracy and F1-score were 84% (83/99) CI95% (77-91%) and 0.67 CI95% (0.51-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The AI tool achieved the same good-to-excellent agreement with the radiology consultant consensus for radiographic knee osteoarthritis severity classification as the consultants did with each other.


Subject(s)
Osteoarthritis, Knee , Artificial Intelligence , Humans , Knee , Osteoarthritis, Knee/diagnostic imaging , Radiography , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL