SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Artificial intelligence for opportunistic screening of osteoporosis across multiple imaging modalities: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Osteoporosis often remains undetected until fracture. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening is limited by poor accessibility. Opportunistic screening of routine medical images, powered by artificial intelligence (AI), may enable automated, large-scale bone health assessment. Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to February 2026 for studies developing AI models for opportunistic osteoporosis screening. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using phase classification and PROBAST. Outcomes included osteoporosis, osteopenia, and fracture risk prediction, evaluated mainly by area under the curve (AUC). Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore sources of heterogeneity. Results: Of 57 included studies (2019-2026), most were retrospective and single-center. Computed tomography (CT) was the most common modality (38 studies), and the spine was the most frequent ROI. Deep learning (29 studies) has largely replaced traditional machine learning, and foundation models have recently emerged. Model performance was generally high (AUC range 0.630-1.000 across tasks), but heterogeneity was substantial. PCA identified sample size, number of centers, and single-center design as major drivers of heterogeneity, smaller and single-center studies tended to report higher AUCs, suggesting possible overestimation. PROBAST assessment revealed that the absence of external validation was the leading source of bias, only 36% of studies conducted external validation, with additional concerns in participant selection and analysis domains. Conclusion: AI-based opportunistic osteoporosis screening has progressed rapidly with encouraging performance. However, the evidence base remains dominated by retrospective single-center studies with limited external validation, which hinders clinical translation. Future work should prioritize multicenter collaboration, prospective validation, and standardized reporting. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261451716, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420261451716).
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.