Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41245724›Full record

ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025

Artificial intelligence algorithms in orthopaedics: A narrative review of methods and clinical applications.

Jamie Rosen, Jemima Russell, Prerna Kartik, Martinique Vella-Baldacchino

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors.

Jamie RosenWarwick Medical School University of Warwick Coventry UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7505-6871
Jemima RussellMSk Lab, Department of Surgery and Cancer Imperial College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0014-4390
Prerna KartikDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedics Kettering General Hospital Kettering UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1855-8881
Martinique Vella-BaldacchinoMSk Lab, Department of Surgery and Cancer Imperial College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3284-7236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This narrative review evaluates the role of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in orthopaedic surgery and distinguishes itself by explaining how the main algorithmic approaches function and illustrating each with orthopaedic examples. Machine learning methods, including regression, classification and reinforcement learning, have been applied to fracture detection, prediction of revision risk and modelling of outcomes after arthroplasty and sports injury. Deep learning and convolutional neural networks have improved fracture classification, implant surveillance and segmentation of cartilage and meniscal tissue on magnetic resonance imaging. Neural networks such as FracNet and YOLO-based systems demonstrate growing capability in trauma imaging. Natural language processing has automated the extraction of operative and registry data, while large language models are emerging for diagnostic support and education. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) have produced synthetic musculoskeletal images to expand data sets. Computer vision and image processing underpin robotic-assisted surgery and preoperative planning, and federated learning enables multicentre collaboration while protecting privacy. Each algorithm offers strengths in accuracy, efficiency or scalability, but also carries bias, transparency, computational cost and lack of external validation. This review explores how these algorithms are shaping orthopaedics, highlighting their benefits, limitations and challenges. Rigorous validation, transparent reporting and governance are essential for safe clinical use. Level of Evidence: N/A.

Indexed as

algorithmartificial intelligencemachine learningorthopaedicsorthopaedic surgery

Identifiers

PMID41245724
PMCPMC12616508

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.