Skeletal radiology · 2023
Deep learning generated lower extremity radiographic measurements are adequate for quick assessment of knee angular alignment and leg length determination.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Archer Holden, Reine Seth, Xia Shuda, Vazquez Louis Camilo, Ashikyan Oganes, Pezeshk Parham, Kohli Ajay, Xi Yin, Wells Joel E, Hummer Allan, Difranco Matthew, Chhabra Avneesh
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Angular and longitudinal deformities of leg alignment create excessive stresses across joints, leading to pain and impaired function. Multiple measurements are used to assess these deformities on anteroposterior (AP) full-length radiographs. An artificial intelligence (AI) software automatically locates anatomical landmarks on AP full-length radiographs and performs 13 measurements to assess knee angular alignment and leg length. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the agreements in LLD and knee alignment measurements between an AI software and two board-certified radiologists in patients without metal implants. The secondary aim was to assess time savings achieved by AI.
METHODS: The measurements assessed in the study were hip-knee-angle (HKA), anatomical-tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), anatomical-mechanical-axis angle (AMA), joint-line-convergence angle (JLCA), mechanical-lateral-proximal-femur-angle (mLPFA), mechanical-lateral-distal-femur-angle (mLDFA), mechanical-medial-proximal-tibia-angle (mMPTA), mechanical-lateral-distal-tibia- angle (mLDTA), femur length, tibia length, full leg length, leg length discrepancy (LLD), and mechanical axis deviation (MAD). These measurements were performed by two radiologists and the AI software on 164 legs. Intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess the AI's performance.
RESULTS: The AI software set incorrect landmarks for 11/164 legs. Excluding these cases, ICCs between the software and radiologists were excellent for 12/13 variables (11/13 with outliers included), and the AI software met performance targets for 11/13 variables (9/13 with outliers included). The mean reading time for the AI algorithm and two readers, respectively, was 38.3, 435.0, and 625.0 s.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that, with few exceptions, this AI-based software reliably generated measurements for most variables in the study and provided substantial time savings.
METHODS: The measurements assessed in the study were hip-knee-angle (HKA), anatomical-tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), anatomical-mechanical-axis angle (AMA), joint-line-convergence angle (JLCA), mechanical-lateral-proximal-femur-angle (mLPFA), mechanical-lateral-distal-femur-angle (mLDFA), mechanical-medial-proximal-tibia-angle (mMPTA), mechanical-lateral-distal-tibia- angle (mLDTA), femur length, tibia length, full leg length, leg length discrepancy (LLD), and mechanical axis deviation (MAD). These measurements were performed by two radiologists and the AI software on 164 legs. Intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess the AI's performance.
RESULTS: The AI software set incorrect landmarks for 11/164 legs. Excluding these cases, ICCs between the software and radiologists were excellent for 12/13 variables (11/13 with outliers included), and the AI software met performance targets for 11/13 variables (9/13 with outliers included). The mean reading time for the AI algorithm and two readers, respectively, was 38.3, 435.0, and 625.0 s.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that, with few exceptions, this AI-based software reliably generated measurements for most variables in the study and provided substantial time savings.