Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41808654›Full record

ArticleBone & joint research2026

Diagnosing orthopaedic infection by identifying neutrophils in whole histology slide images with machine learning trained on publicly available datasets.

Kieran Bentick, Hollie Wilkinson, Ali Al Khader, Helen McCarthy, Karina Wright, Theocharis Kyriacou, Adrienne M Flanagan, Paul Cool

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Kieran BentickRobert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Oswestry, UK.ORCID 0009-0005-3402-0442
Hollie WilkinsonKeele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0009-0008-5470-0543
Ali Al KhaderDepartment of Microbiology, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0001-8453-3629
Helen McCarthyKeele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9534-7565
Karina WrightRobert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Oswestry, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8842-5908
Theocharis KyriacouKeele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5211-3686
Adrienne M FlanaganRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Stanmore, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2832-1303
Paul CoolRobert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Oswestry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4985-3085

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: This study examines the ability of YOLO (You Only Look Once) 11x, a widely used and state of the art object detection model, trained on publicly available datasets, to identify and count neutrophils in tissue samples taken at prosthetic joint revision surgery, with the objective of automating a laborious but necessary part of the diagnostic workup for periprosthetic joint infection. Methods: Three datasets containing blood film microscopic slides with neutrophils were downloaded, combined, and labelled. The resulting dataset of 3,923 images was augmented with ten additional histological slides from periprosthetic tissue, taken at the time of revision surgery (5 infected, 5 sterile), and split into training (70%), validation (20%), and test (10%) sets. The dataset was used to train YOLO 11x object detection model optimized for a mean average precision above 50%. The trained network was tested on a ground truth specimen and histological whole slide images from 19 additional cases, previously unseen by the model, for validation. The threshold for diagnosis of infection on histological sections was set at more than five neutrophils per 0.2 mm Results: The model performed well as ground truth image returned precision at 82%, recall (sensitivity) 79%, and F1 harmonic mean 80%. When assessed against formal histopathological, microbiological, and multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis, precision was 78%, 80%, and 90%; recall 78%, 89%, and 82%; and F1 score 78%, 84%, and 86%, respectively. Against the definitive MDT diagnosis, our model identified nine out of the ten infected cases and excluded seven out of nine cases that were not infected. Conclusion: This study demonstrates ability of the trained model to identify neutrophils in tissue taken at revision surgery and could assist in diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. Further work is needed to improve confidence in the identifications and diagnostic accuracy of periprosthetic infection.

Identifiers

PMID41808654
PMCPMC12976939

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.