Despite the vast quantities of published artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that target trauma and orthopaedic applications, very few progress to inform clinical practice. One key reason for this is the lack of a clear pathway from development to deployment. In order to assist with this process, we have developed the Clinical Practice Integration of Artificial Intelligence (CPI-AI) framework – a five-stage approach to the clinical practice adoption of AI in the setting of trauma and orthopaedics, based on the IDEAL principles (. https://www.ideal-collaboration.net/. ). Adherence to the framework would provide a robust evidence-based mechanism for developing trust in AI applications, where the underlying algorithms are unlikely to be fully understood by clinical teams. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):507–512

Aims. The aim of this study was to create artificial intelligence (AI) software with the purpose of providing a second opinion to physicians to support distal radius fracture (DRF) detection, and to compare the accuracy of fracture detection of physicians with and without software support. Methods. The dataset consisted of 26,121 anonymized anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral standard view radiographs of the wrist, with and without DRF. The convolutional neural network (CNN) model was trained to detect the presence of a DRF by comparing the radiographs containing a fracture to the inconspicuous ones. A total of 11 physicians (six surgeons in training and five hand surgeons) assessed 200 pairs of randomly selected digital radiographs of the wrist (AP and lateral) for the presence of a DRF. The same images were first evaluated without, and then with, the support of the CNN model, and the diagnostic accuracy of the two methods was compared. Results. At the time of the study, the CNN model showed an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.97. AI assistance improved the physician’s sensitivity (correct fracture detection) from 80% to 87%, and the specificity (correct fracture exclusion) from 91% to 95%. The overall error rate (combined false positive and false negative) was reduced from 14% without AI to 9% with AI. Conclusion. The use of a CNN model as a second opinion can improve the diagnostic accuracy of DRF detection in the study setting. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(10):588–595

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly growing across many domains, of which the medical field is no exception. AI is an umbrella term defining the practical application of algorithms to generate useful output, without the need of human cognition. Owing to the expanding volume of patient information collected, known as ‘big data’, AI is showing promise as a useful tool in healthcare research and across all aspects of patient care pathways. Practical applications in orthopaedic surgery include: diagnostics, such as fracture recognition and tumour detection; predictive models of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, such as calculating mortality rates and length of hospital stay; and real-time rehabilitation monitoring and surgical training. However, clinicians should remain cognizant of AI’s limitations, as the development of robust reporting and validation frameworks is of paramount importance to prevent avoidable errors and biases. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI and its subfields, as well as to delineate its existing clinical applications in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, this narrative review expands upon the limitations of AI and future direction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(7):447–454

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303

Artificial intelligence (AI) is, in essence, the concept of ‘computer thinking’, encompassing methods that train computers to perform and learn from executing certain tasks, called machine learning, and methods to build intricate computer models that both learn and adapt, called complex neural networks. Computer vision is a function of AI by which machine learning and complex neural networks can be applied to enable computers to capture, analyze, and interpret information from clinical images and visual inputs. This annotation summarizes key considerations and future perspectives concerning computer vision, questioning the need for this technology (the ‘why’), the current applications (the ‘what’), and the approach to unlocking its full potential (the ‘how’). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):911–914

Aims. The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons. Methods. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Results. The four intersecting themes identified were: 1) validity in traditional research, 2) confusion around the definition of AI, 3) an inability to validate AI research, and 4) cautious optimism about AI research. Underpinning these themes is the notion of a validity heuristic that is strongly rooted in traditional research teaching and embedded in medical and surgical training. Conclusion. Research involving AI sometimes challenges the accepted traditional evidence-based framework. This can give rise to confusion among orthopaedic surgeons, who may be unable to confidently validate findings. In our study, the impact of this was mediated by cautious optimism based on an ingrained validity heuristic that orthopaedic surgeons develop through their medical training. Adding to this, the integration of AI into everyday life works to reduce suspicion and aid acceptance. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):696–703

Aims. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are common orthopaedic procedures requiring postoperative radiographs to confirm implant positioning and identify complications. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based image analysis has the potential to automate this postoperative surveillance. The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate how AI is being used in the analysis of radiographs following THA and TKA, and how accurate these tools are. Methods. The Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed libraries were systematically searched to identify relevant articles. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley framework were followed. Study quality was assessed using a modified Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool. AI performance was reported using either the area under the curve (AUC) or accuracy. Results. Of the 455 studies identified, only 12 were suitable for inclusion. Nine reported implant identification and three described predicting risk of implant failure. Of the 12, three studies compared AI performance with orthopaedic surgeons. AI-based implant identification achieved AUC 0.992 to 1, and most algorithms reported an accuracy > 90%, using 550 to 320,000 training radiographs. AI prediction of dislocation risk post-THA, determined after five-year follow-up, was satisfactory (AUC 76.67; 8,500 training radiographs). Diagnosis of hip implant loosening was good (accuracy 88.3%; 420 training radiographs) and measurement of postoperative acetabular angles was comparable to humans (mean absolute difference 1.35° to 1.39°). However, 11 of the 12 studies had several methodological limitations introducing a high risk of bias. None of the studies were externally validated. Conclusion. These studies show that AI is promising. While it already has the ability to analyze images with significant precision, there is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support its widespread clinical use. Further research to design robust studies that follow standard reporting guidelines should be encouraged to develop AI models that could be easily translated into real-world conditions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):929–937

Artificial intelligence and machine-learning analytics have gained extensive popularity in recent years due to their clinically relevant applications. A wide range of proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the ability of these analyses to personalize risk prediction, detect implant specifics from imaging, and monitor and assess patient movement and recovery. Though these applications are exciting and could potentially influence practice, it is imperative to understand when these analyses are indicated and where the data are derived from, prior to investing resources and confidence into the results and conclusions. In this article, we review the current benefits and potential limitations of machine-learning for the orthopaedic surgeon with a specific emphasis on data quality

This annotation briefly reviews the history of artificial intelligence and machine learning in health care and orthopaedics, and considers the role it will have in the future, particularly with reference to statistical analyses involving large datasets. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1476–1478

Aims. This study was designed to develop a model for predicting bone mineral density (BMD) loss of the femur after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using artificial intelligence (AI), and to identify factors that influence the prediction. Additionally, we virtually examined the efficacy of administration of bisphosphonate for cases with severe BMD loss based on the predictive model. Methods. The study included 538 joints that underwent primary THA. The patients were divided into groups using unsupervised time series clustering for five-year BMD loss of Gruen zone 7 postoperatively, and a machine-learning model to predict the BMD loss was developed. Additionally, the predictor for BMD loss was extracted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The patient-specific efficacy of bisphosphonate, which is the most important categorical predictor for BMD loss, was examined by calculating the change in predictive probability when hypothetically switching between the inclusion and exclusion of bisphosphonate. Results. Time series clustering allowed us to divide the patients into two groups, and the predictive factors were identified including patient- and operation-related factors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for the BMD loss prediction averaged 0.734. Virtual administration of bisphosphonate showed on average 14% efficacy in preventing BMD loss of zone 7. Additionally, stem types and preoperative triglyceride (TG), creatinine (Cr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and creatine kinase (CK) showed significant association with the estimated patient-specific efficacy of bisphosphonate. Conclusion. Periprosthetic BMD loss after THA is predictable based on patient- and operation-related factors, and optimal prescription of bisphosphonate based on the prediction may prevent BMD loss. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(4):184–192

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(8):494–496.

In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448.

In the last decades, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly investigated in intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) and chronic low back pain (LBP) research. To date, several AI-based cutting-edge technologies, such as computer vision, computer-assisted diagnosis, decision support system and natural language processing have been utilized to optimize LBP prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. This talk will provide an outline on contemporary AI applications to IDD and LBP research, with a particular attention towards actual knowledge gaps and promising innovative tools

Over 8000 total hip arthroplasties (THA) in the UK were revised in 2019, half for aseptic loosening. It is believed that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could identify or predict failing THA and result in early recognition of poorly performing implants and reduce patient suffering. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Artificial Intelligence based machine learning (ML) / Deep Learning (DL) techniques can train an algorithm to identify and/or predict failing uncemented THA. Consent was sought from patients followed up in a single design, uncemented THA implant surveillance study (2010–2021). Oxford hip scores and radiographs were collected at yearly intervals. Radiographs were analysed by 3 observers for presence of markers of implant loosening/failure: periprosthetic lucency, cortical hypertrophy, and pedestal formation. DL using the RGB ResNet 18 model, with images entered chronologically, was trained according to revision status and radiographic features. Data augmentation and cross validation were used to increase the available training data, reduce bias, and improve verification of results. 184 patients consented to inclusion. 6 (3.2%) patients were revised for aseptic loosening. 2097 radiographs were analysed: 21 (11.4%) patients had three radiographic features of failure. 166 patients were used for ML algorithm testing of 3 scenarios to detect those who were revised. 1) The use of revision as an end point was associated with increased variability in accuracy. The area under the curve (AUC) was 23–97%. 2) Using 2/3 radiographic features associated with failure was associated with improved results, AUC: 75–100%. 3) Using 3/3 radiographic features, had less variability, reduced AUC of 73%, but 5/6 patients who had been revised were identified (total 66 identified). The best algorithm identified the greatest number of revised hips (5/6), predicting failure 2–8 years before revision, before all radiographic features were visible and before a significant fall in the Oxford Hip score. True-Positive: 0.77, False Positive: 0.29. ML algorithms can identify failing THA before visible features on radiographs or before PROM scores deteriorate. This is an important finding that could identify failing THA early

Bone age is a radiographical assessment used in pediatric medicine due to its relative objectivity in determining biological maturity compared to chronological age and size.1 Currently, Greulich and Pyle (GP) is one of the most common methods used to determine bone age from hand radiographs.2–4 In recent years, new methods were developed to increase the efficiency in bone age analysis like the shorthand bone age (SBA) and the automated artificial intelligence algorithms. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of these two methods and examine if the reduction in analysis time compromises their accuracy. Two hundred thirteen males and 213 females were selected. Each participant had their bone age determined by two separate raters using the GP (M1) and SBA methods (M2). Three weeks later, the two raters repeated the analysis of the radiographs. The raters timed themselves using an online stopwatch while analyzing the radiograph on a computer screen. De-identified radiographs were securely uploaded to an automated algorithm developed by a group of radiologists in Toronto. The gold standard was determined to be the radiology report attached to each radiograph, written by experienced radiologists using GP (M1). For intra-rater variability, intraclass correlation analysis between trial 1 (T1) and trial 2 (T2) for each rater and method was performed. For inter-rater variability, intraclass correlation was performed between rater 1 (R1) and rater 2 (R2) for each method and trial. Intraclass correlation between each method and the gold standard fell within the 0.8–0.9 range, highlighting significant agreement. Most of the comparisons showed a statistically significant difference between the two new methods and the gold standard; however it may not be clinically significant as it ranges between 0.25–0.5 years. A bone age is considered clinically abnormal if it falls outside 2 standard deviations of the chronological age; standard deviations are calculated and provided in GP atlas.6–8 For a 10-year old female, 2 standard deviations constitute 21.6 months which far outweighs the difference reported here between SBA, automated algorithm and the gold standard. The median time for completion using the GP method was 21.83 seconds for rater 1 and 9.30 seconds for rater 2. In comparison, SBA required a median time of 7 seconds for rater 1 and 5 seconds for rater 2. The automated method had no time restraint as bone age was determined immediately upon radiograph upload. The correlation between the two trials in each method and rater (i.e. R1M1T1 vs R1M1T2) was excellent (κ= 0.9–1) confirming the reliability of the two new methods. Similarly, the correlation between the two raters in each method and trial (i.e. R1M1T1 vs R2M1T1) fell within the 0.9–1 range. This indicates a limited variability between raters who may use these two methods. The shorthand bone age method and an artificial intelligence automated algorithm produced values that are in agreement with the gold standard Greulich and Pyle, while reducing analysis time and maintaining a high inter-rater and intra-rater reliability

As patient data continues to grow, the importance of efficient and precise analysis cannot be overstated. The employment of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), specifically Chat GPT-4, in the realm of medical data interpretation has been on the rise. However, its effectiveness in comparison to manual data analysis has been insufficiently investigated. This quality improvement project aimed to evaluate the accuracy and time-efficiency of Generative AI (GPT-4) against manual data interpretation within extensive datasets pertaining to patients with orthopaedic injuries. A dataset, containing details of 6,562 orthopaedic trauma patients admitted to a district general hospital over a span of two years, was reviewed. Two researchers operated independently: one utilised GPT-4 for insights via prompts, while the other manually examined the identical dataset employing Microsoft Excel and IBM® SPSS® software. Both were blinded on each other's procedures and outcomes. Each researcher answered 20 questions based on the dataset including injury details, age groups, injury specifics, activity trends and the duration taken to assess the data. Upon comparison, both GPT-4 and the manual researcher achieved consistent results for 19 out of the 20 questions (95% accuracy). After a subsequent review and refined prompts (prompt engineering) to GPT-4, the answer to the final question aligned with the manual researcher's findings. GPT-4 required just 30 minutes, a stark contrast to the manual researcher's 9-hour analytical duration. This quality improvement project emphasises the transformative potential of Generative AI in the domain of medical data analysis. GPT-4 not only paralleled the accuracy of manual analysis but also achieved this in significantly less time. For optimal accurate results, data analysis by AI can be enhanced through human oversight. Adopting AI-driven approaches, particularly in orthopaedic data interpretation, can enhance efficiency and ultimately improve patient care. We recommend future investigations on large and more varied datasets to reaffirm these outcomes

INTRODUCTION. Quality monitoring is increasingly important to support and assure sustainability of the Orthopaedic practice. Many surgeons in a non-academic setting lack the resources to accurately monitor quality of care. Widespread use of electronic medical records (EMR) provides easier access to medical information and facilitates its analysis. However, manual review of EMRs is inefficient and costly. Artificial Intelligence (AI) software has allowed for development of automated search algorithms for extracting relevant complications from EMRs. We questioned whether an AI supported algorithm could be used to provide accurate feedback on the quality of care following Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in a high-volume, non-academic setting. METHODS. 532 Consecutive patients underwent 613 THA between January 1. st. and December 31. st. , 2017. Patients were prospectively followed pre-op, 6 weeks, 3 months and 1 year. They were seen by the surgeon who created clinical notes and reported every adverse event. A random derivation cohort (100 patients, 115 hips) was used to determine accuracy. The algorithm was compared to manual extraction to validate performance in raw data extraction. The full cohort (532 patients, 613 hips) was used to determine its recall, precision and F-value. RESULTS. The algorithm had an accuracy value of 95.0%, compared to 94.5% for manual review (p=0.69). Recall of 96.0% was achieved with precision of 88.0% and F-measure of 0.85 for all adverse events. Recovery of 80.6% of patients was completely uneventful. Re-intervention was required in 1.3% of cases and 18.1% had a ‘transient’ event such as low back pain. The infection and dislocation rate was 0,3%. CONCLUSION. An AI supported search algorithm can analyze and interpret large quantities of EMRs at greater speed but with performance comparable to manual review. Using the program, new clinical information surfaced. 18.1% of patients can be expected to have a ‘transient’ problem following a THA procedure