Deep learning predicts hip fracture using confounding patient and healthcare variables.
Clicks: 371
ID: 88174
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
371 views
25 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #6 of 13 articles by views in npj digital medicine
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Hip fractures are a leading cause of death and disability among older adults. Hip fractures are also the most commonly missed diagnosis on pelvic radiographs, and delayed diagnosis leads to higher cost and worse outcomes. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) algorithms have shown promise for helping radiologists detect fractures, but the image features underpinning their predictions are notoriously difficult to understand. In this study, we trained deep-learning models on 17,587 radiographs to classify fracture, 5 patient traits, and 14 hospital process variables. All 20 variables could be individually predicted from a radiograph, with the best performances on scanner model (AUC = 1.00), scanner brand (AUC = 0.98), and whether the order was marked "priority" (AUC = 0.79). Fracture was predicted moderately well from the image (AUC = 0.78) and better when combining image features with patient data (AUC = 0.86, DeLong paired AUC comparison, = 2e-9) or patient data plus hospital process features (AUC = 0.91, = 1e-21). Fracture prediction on a test set that balanced fracture risk across patient variables was significantly lower than a random test set (AUC = 0.67, DeLong unpaired AUC comparison, = 0.003); and on a test set with fracture risk balanced across patient and hospital process variables, the model performed randomly (AUC = 0.52, 95% CI 0.46-0.58), indicating that these variables were the main source of the model's fracture predictions. A single model that directly combines image features, patient, and hospital process data outperforms a Naive Bayes ensemble of an image-only model prediction, patient, and hospital process data. If CAD algorithms are inexplicably leveraging patient and process variables in their predictions, it is unclear how radiologists should interpret their predictions in the context of other known patient data. Further research is needed to illuminate deep-learning decision processes so that computers and clinicians can effectively cooperate.
| Reference Key |
badgeley2019deepnpj
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Badgeley, Marcus A;Zech, John R;Oakden-Rayner, Luke;Glicksberg, Benjamin S;Liu, Manway;Gale, William;McConnell, Michael V;Percha, Bethany;Snyder, Thomas M;Dudley, Joel T; |
| Journal | npj digital medicine |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1038/s41746-019-0105-1
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.