Development and external validation of automated detection, classification, and localization of ankle fractures: inside the black box of a convolutional neural network (CNN).
Ankle
Artificial Intelligence
CNN
Lateral Malleolus
Journal
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society
ISSN: 1863-9941
Titre abrégé: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101313350
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
25
05
2022
accepted:
10
10
2022
medline:
15
5
2023
pubmed:
15
11
2022
entrez:
14
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are increasingly being developed for automated fracture detection in orthopaedic trauma surgery. Studies to date, however, are limited to providing classification based on the entire image-and only produce heatmaps for approximate fracture localization instead of delineating exact fracture morphology. Therefore, we aimed to answer (1) what is the performance of a CNN that detects, classifies, localizes, and segments an ankle fracture, and (2) would this be externally valid? The training set included 326 isolated fibula fractures and 423 non-fracture radiographs. The Detectron2 implementation of the Mask R-CNN was trained with labelled and annotated radiographs. The internal validation (or 'test set') and external validation sets consisted of 300 and 334 radiographs, respectively. Consensus agreement between three experienced fellowship-trained trauma surgeons was defined as the ground truth label. Diagnostic accuracy and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) were used to assess classification performance. The Intersection over Union (IoU) was used to quantify accuracy of the segmentation predictions by the CNN, where a value of 0.5 is generally considered an adequate segmentation. The final CNN was able to classify fibula fractures according to four classes (Danis-Weber A, B, C and No Fracture) with AUC values ranging from 0.93 to 0.99. Diagnostic accuracy was 89% on the test set with average sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 96%. External validity was 89-90% accurate on a set of radiographs from a different hospital. Accuracies/AUCs observed were 100/0.99 for the 'No Fracture' class, 92/0.99 for 'Weber B', 88/0.93 for 'Weber C', and 76/0.97 for 'Weber A'. For the fracture bounding box prediction by the CNN, a mean IoU of 0.65 (SD ± 0.16) was observed. The fracture segmentation predictions by the CNN resulted in a mean IoU of 0.47 (SD ± 0.17). This study presents a look into the 'black box' of CNNs and represents the first automated delineation (segmentation) of fracture lines on (ankle) radiographs. The AUC values presented in this paper indicate good discriminatory capability of the CNN and substantiate further study of CNNs in detecting and classifying ankle fractures. II, Diagnostic imaging study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36374292
doi: 10.1007/s00068-022-02136-1
pii: 10.1007/s00068-022-02136-1
pmc: PMC10175446
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1057-1069Investigateurs
Kaan Aksakal
(K)
Britt Barvelink
(B)
Benn Beuker
(B)
Anne Eva Bultra
(AE)
Luisa E Carmo Oliviera
(LEC)
Joost Colaris
(J)
Huub de Klerk
(H)
Andrew Duckworth
(A)
Kaj Ten Duis
(K)
Eelco Fennema
(E)
Jorrit Harbers
(J)
Ran Hendrickx
(R)
Merilyn Heng
(M)
Sanne Hoeksema
(S)
Mike Hogervorst
(M)
Bhavin Jadav
(B)
Julie Jiang
(J)
Aditya Karhade
(A)
Gino Kerkhoffs
(G)
Joost Kuipers
(J)
Charlotte Laane
(C)
David Langerhuizen
(D)
Bart Lubberts
(B)
Wouter Mallee
(W)
Haras Mhmud
(H)
Mostafa El Moumni
(M)
Patrick Nieboer
(P)
Koen Oude Nijhuis
(KO)
Peter van Ooijen
(P)
Jacobien Oosterhoff
(J)
Jai Rawat
(J)
David Ring
(D)
Sanne Schilstra
(S)
Jospeph Schwab
(J)
Sheila Sprague
(S)
Sjoerd Stufkens
(S)
Elvira Tijdens
(E)
Michel van der Bekerom
(M)
Puck van der Vet
(P)
Jean- Paul de Vries
(JP)
Klaus Wendt
(K)
Matthieu Wijffels
(M)
David Worsley
(D)
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Bone Jt Open. 2021 Oct;2(10):879-885
pubmed: 34669518
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Sep;88(9):1204-6
pubmed: 16943473
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Aug;32(4):672-677
pubmed: 31001713
EBioMedicine. 2020 Dec;62:103106
pubmed: 33186809
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32 Suppl 1:S1-S170
pubmed: 29256945
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2020 Apr;81:101715
pubmed: 32240933
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 6;115(45):11591-11596
pubmed: 30348771
Nat Med. 2020 Sep;26(9):1364-1374
pubmed: 32908283
Invest Radiol. 2020 Feb;55(2):101-110
pubmed: 31725064
Korean J Radiol. 2020 Jul;21(7):869-879
pubmed: 32524787
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Jun;2(6):e303-e313
pubmed: 33328124
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019 Feb;63(1):27-32
pubmed: 30407743
Acta Orthop. 2021 Oct;92(5):513-525
pubmed: 33988081
Acta Orthop. 2020 Dec;91(6):699-704
pubmed: 32783544
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Apr 30;2:31
pubmed: 31304378
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 May 6;102(9):830-840
pubmed: 32379124
Eur J Radiol. 2020 May;126:108925
pubmed: 32193036
Nat Med. 2020 Sep;26(9):1351-1363
pubmed: 32908284
Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 13;10(1):13694
pubmed: 32792627
Skeletal Radiol. 2019 Feb;48(2):239-244
pubmed: 29955910
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 16;18(12):e323
pubmed: 27986644
Acta Orthop. 2018 Aug;89(4):468-473
pubmed: 29577791
Eur Radiol. 2021 Aug;31(8):6069-6077
pubmed: 33507353
Injury. 2016 Apr;47(4):944-9
pubmed: 26777468
Acta Orthop. 2021 Feb;92(1):102-108
pubmed: 33103536
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 7;8(1):16485
pubmed: 30405145
J Hand Surg Am. 2020 Mar;45(3):175-181
pubmed: 31959378
EFORT Open Rev. 2020 Oct 26;5(10):593-603
pubmed: 33204501
Orthopedics. 2015 Jul 1;38(7):e626-30
pubmed: 26186326
Nat Med. 2020 Sep;26(9):1320-1324
pubmed: 32908275
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Nov;478(11):2653-2659
pubmed: 32452927
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 May;30(5):e144-51
pubmed: 27101164