ArticleEuropean radiology2026
External validation of an artificial intelligence tool for fracture detection in children with osteogenesis imperfecta: a multireader study.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Enhanced fracture detection on radiographs with AI assistance for clinicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Current applications and challenges of artificial intelligence applied to diagnostics in pediatric musculoskeletal imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.