Automatic detection and classification of peri-prosthetic femur fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Object classification and localization is a key task of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tool. Although there have been numerous generic deep learning (DL) models developed for CAD, there is no work in the literature to evaluate their effectiveness when utilized in diagnosing fractures in proximity of joint implants. In this work, we aim to assess the performance of existing classification systems on binary and multi-class problems (fracture types) using plain radiographs. In addition, we evaluated the performance of object detection systems using the one- and two-stage DL architectures. METHODS: A data set of 1272 X-ray images of Peri-prosthetic Femur Fracture PFF was collected. The fractures were annotated with bounding boxes and classified according to the Vancouver Classification System (type A, B, C) by two clinical specialists. Four classification models such as Densenet161, Resnet50, Inception, VGG and two object detection models such as Faster RCNN and RetinaNet were evaluated, and their performance compared. Six confusion matrix-based measures were reported to evaluate fracture classification. For localization of the fracture, Average Precision and localization accuracy were reported. RESULTS: The Resnet50 showed the best performance with [Formula: see text] accuracy and [Formula: see text] F1-score in the binary classification: fracture/normal. In addition, the Resnet50 showed [Formula: see text] accuracy in multi-classification (normal, Vancouver type A, B and C). CONCLUSIONS: A large data set of PFF images and the annotations of fracture features by two independent assessments were created to implement a DL-based approach for detecting, classifying and localizing PFFs. It was shown that this approach could be a promising diagnostic tool of fractures in proximity of joint implants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".