ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Performance evaluation of deep learning-based osteoporosis diagnostic models with conventional chest X-ray in a clinical cohort.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence-based osteoporosis screening system on portable chest radiographs.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard for diagnosing osteoporosis; however, its limited accessibility often hinders routine screening in primary care settings. To address this gap, we developed and evaluated a deep learning-based model, PROS Methods: This retrospective study included 80 adult patients who underwent both DXA and chest radiography within a 3-month interval. The deep learning model, based on convolutional neural networks and trained via transfer learning, generated osteoporosis predictions from chest X-rays. Model performance was assessed against DXA-derived T-scores of the femur and lumbar spine, using either the minimum or average T-score per site as the reference standard. Results: The proposed model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 for femur and 0.93 for lumbar spine predictions. For osteoporosis screening, the sensitivity and specificity were 90% and 81%, respectively. Subgroup analysis demonstrated higher predictive performance in female patients, whereas false-positives (FPs) occurred more frequently in males. Conclusions: The PROS
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.