ArticlePloS one2024
Trustworthy deep learning framework for the detection of abnormalities in X-ray shoulder images.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in virtual fracture clinics: a systematic review of imaging and clinical-text tools.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Large language models show high clinical safety but differences in completeness for reproductive counselling in women with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a comparative expert evaluation.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Explainable Two-Stage Xception-Swin Transformer Learning for Body-Part-Aware Fracture Detection in Musculoskeletal X-Rays.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of a multistage transfer learning framework for robust medical image analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Gradient-Based Saliency Maps Are Not Trustworthy Visual Explanations of Automated AI Musculoskeletal Diagnoses.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Musculoskeletal conditions affect an estimated 1.7 billion people worldwide, causing intense pain and disability. These conditions lead to 30 million emergency room visits yearly, and the numbers are only increasing. However, diagnosing musculoskeletal issues can be challenging, especially in emergencies where quick decisions are necessary. Deep learning (DL) has shown promise in various medical applications. However, previous methods had poor performance and a lack of transparency in detecting shoulder abnormalities on X-ray images due to a lack of training data and better representation of features. This often resulted in overfitting, poor generalisation, and potential bias in decision-making. To address these issues, a new trustworthy DL framework has been proposed to detect shoulder abnormalities (such as fractures, deformities, and arthritis) using X-ray images. The framework consists of two parts: same-domain transfer learning (TL) to mitigate imageNet mismatch and feature fusion to reduce error rates and improve trust in the final result. Same-domain TL involves training pre-trained models on a large number of labelled X-ray images from various body parts and fine-tuning them on the target dataset of shoulder X-ray images. Feature fusion combines the extracted features with seven DL models to train several ML classifiers. The proposed framework achieved an excellent accuracy rate of 99.2%, F1Score of 99.2%, and Cohen's kappa of 98.5%. Furthermore, the accuracy of the results was validated using three visualisation tools, including gradient-based class activation heat map (Grad CAM), activation visualisation, and locally interpretable model-independent explanations (LIME). The proposed framework outperformed previous DL methods and three orthopaedic surgeons invited to classify the test set, who obtained an average accuracy of 79.1%. The proposed framework has proven effective and robust, improving generalisation and increasing trust in the final results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.