YOLOv12 Algorithm-Aided Detection and Classification of Lateral Malleolar Avulsion Fracture and Subfibular Ossicle Based on CT Images: Multicenter Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Lateral malleolar avulsion fractures (LMAFs) and subfibular ossicles (SFOs) are distinct entities that both present as small bone fragments near the lateral malleolus in imaging but require different treatment strategies. Clinical and radiological differentiation is challenging, which can impede timely and precise management. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the diagnostic gold standard for differentiating LMAFs from SFOs, whereas radiological differentiation using computed tomography (CT) alone is challenging in routine practice. Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) have shown promise in musculoskeletal imaging diagnostics, but robust, multicenter evidence in this specific context is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate several state-of-the-art DCNNs-including the latest You Only Look Once (YOLO) v12 algorithm-for detecting and classifying LMAFs and SFOs in CT images, using MRI-based diagnoses as the gold standard and to compare model performance with radiologists reading CT alone. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 1918 patients (LMAF: n=1253, 65.3%; SFO: n=665, 34.7%) were enrolled from 2 hospitals in China between 2014 and 2024. MRI served as the gold standard and was independently interpreted by 2 senior musculoskeletal radiologists. Only CT images were used for model training, validation, and testing. CT images were manually annotated with bounding boxes. The cohort was randomly split into a training set (n=1092, 56.93%), internal validation set (n=476, 24.82%), and external test set (n=350, 18.25%). Four deep learning models-faster R-CNN, single shot multibox detector (SSD), RetinaNet, and YOLOv12-were trained and evaluated using identical procedures. Model performance was assessed using mean average precision at intersection over union=0.5 (mAP50), area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The external test set was also independently interpreted by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists with 7 and 15 years of experience, with results compared with the best-performing model. Saliency maps were generated using Shapley values to enhance interpretability. RESULTS: Among the evaluated models, YOLOv12 achieved the highest detection and classification performance, with a mAP50 of 92.1% and an AUC of 0.983 on the external test set-significantly outperforming faster R-CNN (mAP50 63.7%; AUC 0.79); SSD (mAP50 63%; AUC 0.63); and RetinaNet (mAP50 67.0%; AUC 0.73)-all P<.001. When using CT alone, radiologists performed at a moderate level (accuracy: 75.6% and 69.1%; sensitivity: 75.0% and 65.2%; specificity: 76.0% and 71.1%), whereas YOLOv12 approached MRI-based reference performance (accuracy: 92.0%; sensitivity: 86.7%; specificity: 82.2%). Saliency maps corresponded well with expert-identified regions. CONCLUSIONS: While MRI (read by senior radiologists) is the gold standard for distinguishing LMAFs from SFOs, CT-based differentiation is challenging for radiologists. A CT-only DCNN (YOLOv12) achieved substantially higher performance than radiologists interpreting CT alone and approached the MRI-based reference standard, highlighting its potential to augment CT-based decision-making where MRI is limited or unavailable.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».