Background and purpose — Deep-learning approaches based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are gaining interest in the medical imaging field. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of a CNN to discriminate femoral neck fractures, trochanteric fractures, and non-fracture using antero-posterior (AP) and lateral hip radiographs. Patients and methods — 1,703 plain hip AP radiographs and 1,220 plain hip lateral radiographs were included in the total dataset. 150 images each of the AP and lateral views were separated out and the remainder of the dataset was used for training. The CNN made the diagnosis based on: (1) AP radiographs alone, (2) lateral radiographs alone, or (3) both AP and lateral radiographs combined. The diagnostic performance of the CNN was measured by the accuracy, recall, precision, and F1 score. We further compared the CNN’s performance with that of orthopedic surgeons. Results — The average accuracy, recall, precision, and F1 score of the CNN based on both anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were 0.98, 0.98, 0.98, and 0.98, respectively. The accuracy of the CNN was comparable to, or statistically significantly better than, that of the orthopedic surgeons regardless of radiographic view used. In the CNN model, the accuracy of the diagnosis based on both views was significantly better than the lateral view alone and tended to be better than the AP view alone. Interpretation — The CNN exhibited comparable or superior performance to that of orthopedic surgeons to discriminate femoral neck fractures, trochanteric fractures, and non-fracture using both AP and lateral hip radiographs.

The emergency department is an environment with a potential risk for diagnostic errors during trauma care, particularly for fractures. Convolutional neural network (CNN) deep learning methods are now widely used in medicine because they improve diagnostic accuracy, decrease misinterpretation, and improve efficiency. In this study, we investigated whether automatic localization and classification using CNN could be applied to pelvic, rib, and spine fractures. We also examined whether this fracture detection algorithm could help physicians in fracture diagnosis. A total of 7664 whole-body CT axial slices (chest, abdomen, pelvis) from 200 patients were used. Sensitivity, precision, and F1-score were calculated to evaluate the performance of the CNN model. For the grouped mean values for pelvic, spine, or rib fractures, the sensitivity was 0.786, precision was 0.648, and F1-score was 0.711. Moreover, with CNN model assistance, surgeons showed improved sensitivity for detecting fractures and the time of reading and interpreting CT scans was reduced, especially for less experienced orthopedic surgeons. Application of the CNN model may lead to reductions in missed fractures from whole-body CT images and to faster workflows and improved patient care through efficient diagnosis in polytrauma patients.

Spinal injuries, including cervical and thoracolumbar fractures, continue to be a major public health concern. Recent advancements in machine learning and deep learning technologies offer exciting prospects for improving both diagnostic and prognostic approaches in spinal injury care. This narrative review systematically explores the practical utility of these computational methods, with a focus on their application in imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as in structured clinical data. Of the 39 studies included, 34 were focused on diagnostic applications, chiefly using deep learning to carry out tasks like vertebral fracture identification, differentiation between benign and malignant fractures, and AO fracture classification. The remaining five were prognostic, using machine learning to analyze parameters for predicting outcomes such as vertebral collapse and future fracture risk. This review highlights the potential benefit of machine learning and deep learning in spinal injury care, especially their roles in enhancing diagnostic capabilities, detailed fracture characterization, risk assessments, and individualized treatment planning.

Study Design.: Retrospective study of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Objectives.: To assess the ability of a convolutional neural network (CNN) model to differentiate osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) and malignant vertebral compression fractures (MVFs) using short-TI inversion recovery (STIR) and T1-weighted images (T1WI) and to compare it to the performance of three spine surgeons. Summary of Background Data.: Differentiating between OVFs and MVFs is crucial for appropriate clinical staging and treatment planning. However, an accurate diagnosis is sometimes difficult. Recently, CNN modeling—an artificial intelligence technique—has gained popularity in the radiology field. Methods.: We enrolled 50 patients with OVFs and 47 patients with MVFs who underwent thoracolumbar MRI. Sagittal STIR images and sagittal T1WI were used to train and validate the CNN models. To assess the performance of the CNN, the receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted and the area under the curve was calculated. We also compared the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the diagnosis made by the CNN and three spine surgeons. Results.: The area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curves of the CNN based on STIR images and T1WI were 0.967 and 0.984, respectively. The CNN model based on STIR images showed a performance of 93.8% accuracy, 92.5% sensitivity, and 94.9% specificity. On the other hand, the CNN model based on T1WI showed a performance of 96.4% accuracy, 98.1% sensitivity, and 94.9% specificity. The accuracy and specificity of the CNN using both STIR and T1WI were statistically equal to or better than that of three spine surgeons. There were no significant differences in sensitivity based on both STIR images and T1WI between the CNN and spine surgeons. Conclusion.: We successfully differentiated OVFs and MVFs based on MRI with high accuracy using the CNN model, which was statistically equal or superior to that of the spine surgeons. Level of Evidence: 4