ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Evaluation of AI developed for rib fracture detection in identifying vertebral fractures on abdominal CT.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the performance of an AI algorithm originally developed for rib fracture detection in identifying vertebral fractures on abdominal CT scans.
methodsA retrospective study was performed on 58 patients with both CT and MRI scans. An AI model and ER clinicians independently assessed CT images for fractures of the vertebral body, transverse processes, and spinous processes. Two spine radiologists reviewed both CT and MRI data and established the reference standard.
resultsAt the patient level, both the AI algorithm and ER clinicians achieved 100% sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and F1-score. At the vertebral level, the AI algorithm achieved higher sensitivity than ER clinicians (67% vs. 54%, p < 0.05), with similar accuracy (93% vs. 94%, p = 0.73). At the anatomical location level, the AI algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 62%, accuracy of 98%, and an F1-score of 0.69, compared with 46% sensitivity (p < 0.05), 97% accuracy (p = 0.92), and an F1-score of 0.62 (p = 0.50) for ER clinicians. Among 178 confirmed fracture locations, the AI algorithm detected 110 cases, whereas ER clinicians identified 81. Of the 97 fractures missed by ER clinicians, the AI algorithm correctly detected 51.
conclusionsThe AI software originally trained for rib fracture detection identified vertebral fractures with higher sensitivity compared to those detected by ER clinicians. Its ability to identify otherwise missed fractures highlights its value as a supplementary tool in urgent care.
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.