ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
U-Net-Based Automated Quality Control of Knee Radiographs: Dual-Center Validation and Clinical Intervention.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Knee radiography quality directly affects diagnostic accuracy. Current quality control (QC) mainly involves subjective, inefficient manual assessment, while existing automated tools lack sufficient clinical validation. We developed and validated an interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) framework for the automated QC of knee anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) radiographs and explored its clinical value. This two-stage retrospective study developed and validated U-Net models using 1600 adult single-knee AP and LAT radiographs from 800 patients at two centers. Anatomical segmentation and landmark localization yielded QC indices. Segmentation was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC); landmark localization using Euclidean error, normalized distance error (NDE), and percentage of correct keypoints (PCK); and QC performance using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), sensitivity, and specificity. Separately, six radiographers received 4 weeks of AI-based feedback on 948 radiographs from 474 patients. The mean DSCs were 0.964 and 0.936 in the internal and external validation cohorts, respectively, and most of the ICCs exceeded 0.90. The mean AP localization errors were 13.52 pixels internally and 19.15 pixels externally, and the corresponding LAT values were 26.34 and 41.50 pixels, respectively. PCK@20% was 100.0%/99.4% for AP and 81.6%/61.8% for LAT in the internal/external cohorts. QC sensitivity ranged from 91.67% to 98.36%, and the specificity ranged from 89.13% to 99.10%. Post-feedback sensitivity showed exploratory numerical gains. Effect sizes ranged from 0.30 to 0.73. The proposed framework enables accurate, objective, and automated QC of knee radiographs, as demonstrated through dual-center validation. The workflow evaluation showed favorable exploratory trends in radiographer sensitivity, warranting further evaluation in prospective controlled studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42745119What 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.