Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40337671›Full record

ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025

Artificial intelligence demonstrates potential to enhance orthopaedic imaging across multiple modalities: A systematic review.

Umile Giuseppe Longo, Alberto Lalli, Guido Nicodemi, Matteo Giuseppe Pisani, Alessandro De Sire, Pieter D'Hooghe, Ara Nazarian, Jacob F Oeding, Balint Zsidai, Kristian Samuelsson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Precision medicine in orthopaedics: A review of current technologies and future directions.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Umile Giuseppe LongoFondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Roma Italy.
Alberto LalliFondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Roma Italy.
Guido NicodemiFondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Roma Italy.
Matteo Giuseppe PisaniFondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Roma Italy.
Alessandro De SireDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences University of Catanzaro "Magna Grecia" Catanzaro Italy.
Pieter D'HoogheDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sportsmedicine Aspetar Hospital Doha Qatar.
Ara NazarianCarl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Musculoskeletal Translational Innovation Initiative, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA.
Jacob F OedingSchool of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine Rochester Minnesota USA.
Balint ZsidaiDepartment of Orthopaedics Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden.
Kristian SamuelssonDepartment of Orthopaedics Institute of Clinical Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5383-3370

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: While several artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted medical imaging applications are reported in the recent orthopaedic literature, comparison of the clinical efficacy and utility of these applications is currently lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of AI applications in orthopaedic imaging, focusing on their impact on diagnostic accuracy, image segmentation and operational efficiency across various imaging modalities. Methods: Based on the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed, using combinations of keywords and MeSH descriptors ('AI', 'ML', 'deep learning', 'orthopaedic surgery' and 'imaging') from inception to March 2024. Included were studies published between September 2018 and February 2024, which evaluated machine learning (ML) model effectiveness in improving orthopaedic imaging. Studies with insufficient data regarding the output variable used to assess the reliability of the ML model, those applying deterministic algorithms, unrelated topics, protocol studies, and other systematic reviews were excluded from the final synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool were applied for the assessment of bias among the included studies. Results: The 53 included studies reported the use of 11.990.643 images from several diagnostic instruments. A total of 39 studies reported details in terms of the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), while both accuracy and sensitivity were documented across 15 studies. Precision was reported by 14, specificity by nine, and the F1 score by four of the included studies. Three studies applied the area under the curve (AUC) method to evaluate ML model performance. Among the studies included in the final synthesis, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) emerged as the most frequently applied category of ML models, present in 17 studies (32%). Conclusion: The systematic review highlights the diverse application of AI in orthopaedic imaging, demonstrating the capability of various machine learning models in accurately segmenting and analysing orthopaedic images. The results indicate that AI models achieve high performance metrics across different imaging modalities. However, the current body of literature lacks comprehensive statistical analysis and randomized controlled trials, underscoring the need for further research to validate these findings in clinical settings. Level of evidence: Systematic Review; Level of evidence IV.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)imagingmultimodality

Identifiers

PMID40337671
PMCPMC12056712

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.