MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Artificial intelligence for diagnosing rare bone diseases: a global survey of healthcare professionals

2025· other· en· W6977488372 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careMedical imagingHealth professionalsProcess (computing)Survey data collectionMEDLINEHealthcare systemTeleradiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Rare bone diseases (RBDs) are an important group of conditions characterized by abnormalities in bone and cartilage. Their large number, individual rarity, and heterogeneity make accurate and timely diagnosis challenging. Establishing correlations between genotype and phenotype (mainly via imaging) is critical for diagnosing RBDs. Image recognition artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to significantly improve the diagnostic process by assisting healthcare providers to identify and differentiate imaging patterns associated with various RBDs. This survey study sought to assess the interest of various healthcare providers worldwide in utilizing an AI-based assistant tool for the differential diagnosis of RBDs. Method Survey data were collected from March to September 2024. The survey was performed online and the link was disseminated via direct email, newsletters, and flyers at scientific talks and conferences. Results We received 103 completed surveys, representing respondents from 27 different countries covering most global regions, but mostly from Europe, the United States, and Canada. The majority of the participants are physicians (n = 92, 89%) and primarily work at academic medical centers (n = 84, 81%). While each participant could select multiple specialties, the most frequent clinician types were medical geneticists, pediatricians, and endocrinologists, accounting for 71 (69%) of the respondents. Ninety-four (91%) of the respondents find imaging to be very or extremely important, and the majority (n = 84, 81%) consider X-rays to be the most important imaging modality. Although around half of the participants (n = 45) have concerns about AI-related errors and consider the explainability of AI algorithms to be very (42/103) or extremely (9/103) important, 81% of the respondents report that they are somewhat (n = 39) or extremely (n = 45) likely to consider integrating image recognition AI into their current diagnostic workflow. Conclusions Most survey participants are open to integrating image recognition AI into their RBD diagnostic workflow. However, concerns about AI-related errors, privacy, and model interpretability highlight the importance of transparent collaboration between developers and healthcare professionals throughout the development process to ensure that such technologies are clinically trustworthy and practically adoptable.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.284 · 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