Diagnostic Accuracy of 3D Ultrasound and Artificial Intelligence for Detection of Pediatric Wrist Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wrist trauma is common in children, typically requiring radiography for diagnosis and treatment planning. However, many children do not have fractures and are unnecessarily exposed to radiation. Ultrasound performed at bedside could detect fractures prior to radiography. Modern tools including three-dimensional ultrasound (3DUS) and artificial intelligence (AI) have not yet been applied to this task. Our purpose was to assess (1) feasibility, reliability, and accuracy of 3DUS for detection of pediatric wrist fractures, and (2) accuracy of automated fracture detection via AI from 3DUS sweeps. Children presenting to an emergency department with unilateral upper extremity injury to the wrist region were scanned on both the affected and unaffected limb. Radiographs of the symptomatic limb were obtained for comparison. Ultrasound scans were read by three individuals to determine reliability. An AI network was trained and compared against the human readers. Thirty participants were enrolled, resulting in scans from fifty-five wrists. Readers had a combined sensitivity of 1.00 and specificity of 0.90 for fractures. AI interpretation was indistinguishable from human interpretation, with all fractures detected in the test set of 36 images (sensitivity = 1.0). The high sensitivity of 3D ultrasound and automated AI ultrasound interpretation suggests that ultrasound could potentially rule out fractures in the emergency department.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".