MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413397320 · doi:10.71000/t761gz19

APPLICATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN DETECTING MUSCULOSKELETAL ABNORMALITIES THROUGH AUTOMATED RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ANALYSIS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2025· article· en· W4413397320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Summan Mughal, Muhammad Babur, Zuhaib shahid, Muhammad Munhib Shehzad, Rao Rubina, Usman Akram

Bibliographic record

VenueInsights-Journal of Life and Social Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceRadiographyComputer scienceComputer visionPsychologyMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)Radiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming diagnostic radiology, particularly in musculoskeletal imaging where precise and timely detection of abnormalities is essential for effective treatment. While numerous AI applications have been explored in individual studies, the lack of a consolidated synthesis of their diagnostic accuracy and clinical relevance in radiographic analysis of musculoskeletal disorders highlights a significant gap in the literature. Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the current evidence on the application of artificial intelligence in detecting musculoskeletal abnormalities using automated analysis of radiographic images, focusing on diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility, and limitations. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2018 and 2025. Eligible studies involved human subjects, applied AI to musculoskeletal radiographic imaging, and reported diagnostic outcomes. Data were extracted on study design, AI algorithms, sample size, outcomes, and performance metrics. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools based on study type. Results: Eight studies were included, encompassing diagnostic accuracy studies, narrative reviews, and one systematic review. AI models demonstrated high diagnostic performance, with AUC values ranging from 0.87 to >0.99, and strong correlation with expert radiologist interpretations. Applications included fracture detection, joint assessment, implant analysis, and TMJ osteoarthritis diagnosis. Variability in study designs and outcome reporting limited the feasibility of meta-analysis. Conclusion: AI demonstrates significant potential in improving the accuracy and efficiency of musculoskeletal radiographic interpretation. However, heterogeneity across studies and limited external validation underscore the need for further prospective, real-world research to support clinical integration and ensure generalizability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsights-Journal of Life and Social SciencesSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207