SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
The Diagnostic Value of Image-Based Machine Learning for Osteoporosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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.
- Opportunistic Osteoporosis Screening from Routine Knee Radiographs Using a Multi-Stage CNN Framework with External Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Osteoporosis Diagnosis, Risk Prediction and Therapy: Current Advances, Clinical Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Clinical interventions in aging · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Osteoporosis (OP) is projected to be a major issue significantly impacting the well-being of middle-aged and old populations. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models developed based on medical imaging have enhanced clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and work efficiency. However, the diagnostic performance of different types of medical imaging for OP has not been systematically assessed. Objective: By summarizing related literature, this study aims to elucidate the role of DL models based on different medical imaging modalities in OP detection. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies using ML for the diagnosis of OP based on medical imaging. The final search was conducted on May 16, 2024. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate mixed-effects model was applied to perform meta-analyses of sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPC), stratified by imaging modality (x-ray, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). In addition, subgroup analyses were carried out based on the type of ML algorithm, the method of validation dataset generation, and the anatomical site of assessment. Results: A total of 60 studies comprising 66,195 participants were encompassed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Among these, 22 studies used x-ray imaging, 37 applied CT imaging, and 3 used MRI for ML-based OP diagnosis. For x-ray-based models, the pooled SEN and SPC for studies focusing on the appendicular skeleton were 0.97 (95% CI 0.83-0.99) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.75-0.96), respectively. For studies using the mandible as the target site, SEN and SPC were 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.56-0.93), respectively. For those focusing on the lumbar spine, the pooled SEN and SPC were 0.87 (95% CI 0.77-0.93) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.87), respectively. For CT-based models, studies targeting the hip joint reported a pooled SEN and SPC of 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.90) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.81-0.96), respectively. For the thoracic spine, SEN and SPC were 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.94) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.95), respectively, while for the lumbar spine, they were 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.95), respectively. Conclusions: ML based on medical imaging demonstrates high diagnosis accuracy for OP, particularly DL models using x-ray and CT modalities. However, this study included only a limited number of original studies using MRI-based ML, and there remains a lack of adequate external validation across studies, which poses interpretative limitations. Future research should aim to develop artificial intelligence tools with broader applicability and enhanced diagnostic precision.
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.