Diagnosis of Rib Fracture Using Artificial Intelligence on Chest CT Images of Patients with Chest Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the pros and cons of an artificial intelligence (AI) model developed to diagnose acute rib fractures in chest CT images of patients with chest trauma. Materials and Methods: = 50]) were selected among patients with chest trauma. Among 1159 acute rib fracture CT images, 9 were randomly selected for AI model training. 150 acute rib fracture CT images and 50 normal ones were tested, and the remaining 1000 acute rib fracture CT images was internally verified. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy and errors of AI model for the presence and location of acute rib fractures. Results: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy for diagnosing acute rib fractures in chest CT images were 93.3%, 94%, 97.9%, 82.5%, and 95.6% respectively. However, the accuracy of the location of acute rib fractures was low at 76% (760/1000). The cause of error in the diagnosis of acute rib fracture seemed to be a result of considering the scapula or clavicle that were in the same position (66%) or some ribs that were not recognized (34%). Conclusion: The AI model for diagnosing acute rib fractures showed high accuracy in detecting the presence of acute rib fractures, but diagnosis of the exact location of rib fractures was limited.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".