ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2025
Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic osteoporosis screening using artificial-intelligence assisted chest radiographs in Japan.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- AI-derived bone mineral density from standard radiographs compared with DXA for fracture prediction in a 10-year real-world cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Clinical and economic impact of deep learning-enhanced opportunistic osteoporosis screening using chest radiographs with and without the osteoporosis self-assessment tool for Asians (OSTA).Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Osteoporosis is often undiagnosed due to the shortcomings of conventional screening, resulting in missed chances for early treatment. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning applied to chest X-rays, offer a new opportunity for opportunistic screening. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of this approach in Japanese women aged ≥ 50 years. Methods: An economic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (in 2024 Japanese Yen, ¥) for a strategy involving AI-assisted chest X-ray screening followed by treatment, compared to no screening. Patient trajectories were modeled using the AI system's diagnostic performance and aligned with the Japanese osteoporosis guidelines. Analyses were conducted for Japan overall, in Kure City (a high-fracture-incidence area), and in a lower-incidence scenario. Real-world medication persistence, the probabilities of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry examination after screening detection, and treatment initiation rates were incorporated. Results: Nationwide in Japan, the cost per QALY gained from opportunistic osteoporosis screening was estimated at ¥189,713 for women aged ≥ 50, substantially lower than the accepted cost-effectiveness threshold of ¥5 million. In Kure City, opportunistic screening was dominant (lower total costs for more QALYs). In the lower-incidence scenario, 25% below the national average, the cost per QALY was ¥1,055,095, remaining below the threshold. Results were robust across all age-specific populations and in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Leveraging AI-assisted chest X-rays for incidental osteoporosis detection demonstrates strong economic viability for older Japanese women. This approach also proves to be a dominant strategy in areas with elevated fracture rates.
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.