AI Screening Tool Based on X-Rays Improves Early Detection of Decreased Bone Density in a Clinical Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Osteoporosis is an under-screened musculoskeletal disorder that results in diminished quality of life and significant burden to the healthcare system. We aimed to evaluate the ability of Rho, an artificial intelligence (AI) tool, to prospectively identify patients at-risk for low bone mineral density (BMD) from standard x-rays, its adoption rate by radiologists, and acceptance by primary care providers (PCPs). Methods: Patients ≥50 years were recruited when undergoing an x-ray of a Rho-eligible body part for any clinical indication. Questionnaires were completed at baseline and 6-month follow-up, and PCPs of “Rho-Positive” patients (those likely to have low BMD) were asked for feedback. Positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated in patients who returned within 6 months for a DXA. Results: Of 1145 patients consented, 987 had x-rays screened by Rho, and 655 were flagged as Rho-Positive. Radiologists included this finding in 524 (80%) of reports. Of all Rho-Positive patients, 125 had a DXA within 6 months; Rho had a 74% PPV for DXA T-Score <−1. From 51 PCP responses, 78% found Rho beneficial. Of 389 patients with follow-up questionnaire data, a greater proportion of patients with Rho results reported vs not reported by a radiologist had discussed bone health with their PCP since study start (37% vs 21%, P < .001), or were newly diagnosed with osteoporosis (12% vs 5%; P = .02). Conclusion: By identifying patients at-risk of low BMD, with acceptability of reporting by radiologists and generally positive feedback from PCPs, Rho has the potential to improve low screening rates for osteoporosis by leveraging existing x-ray data.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".