Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40624375›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

External validation of an artificial intelligence tool for fracture detection in children with osteogenesis imperfecta: a multireader study.

Cato Pauling, Harsimran Laidlow-Singh, Emily Evans, David Garbera, Rosalind Williamson, Ranil Fernando, Kate Thomas, Helena Martin, Owen J Arthurs, Susan C Shelmerdine

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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.

Cato PaulingUniversity College London, Gower Street, London, UK. cato.pauling.22@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7420-4241
Harsimran Laidlow-SinghDepartment of Paediatric Radiology, Evelina London Children's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Emily EvansDepartment of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
David GarberaDepartment of Paediatric Radiology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Rosalind WilliamsonDepartment of Paediatric Radiology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Ranil FernandoDepartment of Paediatric Radiology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Kate ThomasVictoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK.
Helena MartinGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Owen J ArthursGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.
Susan C ShelmerdineGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.

Funding

European Society of Radiology Seed Grant 2022Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity VS0618NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre NIHR-301322NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre NIHR-CDF-2017-10-037
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the performance of a commercially available AI tool for fracture detection when used in children with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). MATERIALS AND

methodsAll appendicular and pelvic radiographs from an OI clinic at a single centre from 48 patients were included. Seven radiologists evaluated anonymised images in two rounds, first without, then with AI assistance. Differences in diagnostic accuracy between the rounds were analysed.

results48 patients (mean 12 years) provided 336 images, containing 206 fractures established by consensus opinion of two radiologists. AI produced a per-examination accuracy of 74.8% [95% CI: 65.4%, 82.7%], compared to average radiologist performance at 83.4% [95% CI: 75.2%, 89.8%]. Radiologists using AI assistance improved average radiologist accuracy per examination to 90.7% [95% CI: 83.5%, 95.4%]. AI gave more false negatives than radiologists, with 80 missed fractures versus 41, respectively. Radiologists were more likely (74.6%) to alter their original decision to agree with AI at the per-image level, 82.8% of which led to a correct result, 64.0% of which were changing from a false positive to a true negative.

conclusionDespite inferior standalone performance, AI assistance can still improve radiologist fracture detection in a rare disease paediatric population. Radiologists using AI typically led to more accurate diagnostic outcomes through reduced false positives. Future studies focusing on the real-world application of AI tools in a larger population of children with bone fragility disorders will help better evaluate whether these improvements in accuracy translate into improved patient outcomes. KEY POINTS: Question How well does a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) tool identify fractures, on appendicular radiographs of children with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), and can it also improve radiologists' identification of fractures in this population? Findings Specialist human radiologists outperformed the AI fracture detection tool when acting alone; however, their diagnostic performance overall improved with AI assistance. Clinical relevance AI assistance improves specialist radiologist fracture detection in children with osteogenesis imperfecta, even with AI performance alone inferior to the radiologists acting alone. The reason for this was due to the AI moderating the number of false positives generated by the radiologists.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceFractures, BoneOsteogenesis ImperfectaRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityArtificial intelligenceChildrenFractureOsteogenesis imperfectaRadiography

Identifiers

PMID40624375
PMCPMC12712034

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.