
==== Front
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
0936-8051
1434-3916
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

38578309
5298
10.1007/s00402-024-05298-2
Handsurgery
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Diagnostic power of ChatGPT 4 in distal radius fracture detection through wrist radiographs
Mert Sinan Sinan.Mert@med.uni-muenchen.de

Stoerzer Patrick
Brauer Johannes
Fuchs Benedikt
Haas-Lützenberger Elisabeth M.
Demmer Wolfram
Giunta Riccardo E.
Nuernberger Tim
grid.5252.0 0000 0004 1936 973X Division of Hand, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 80336 München, Germany
5 4 2024
5 4 2024
2024
144 5 24612467
9 3 2024
27 3 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Distal radius fractures rank among the most prevalent fractures in humans, necessitating accurate radiological imaging and interpretation for optimal diagnosis and treatment. In addition to human radiologists, artificial intelligence systems are increasingly employed for radiological assessments. Since 2023, ChatGPT 4 has offered image analysis capabilities, which can also be used for the analysis of wrist radiographs. This study evaluates the diagnostic power of ChatGPT 4 in identifying distal radius fractures, comparing it with a board-certified radiologist, a hand surgery resident, a medical student, and the well-established AI Gleamer BoneView™. Results demonstrate ChatGPT 4’s good diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.98, diagnostic power (AUC) 0.93), surpassing the medical student (sensitivity 0.98, specificity 0.72, diagnostic power (AUC) 0.85; p = 0.04) significantly. Nevertheless, the diagnostic power of ChatGPT 4 lags behind the hand surgery resident (sensitivity 0.99, specificity 0.98, diagnostic power (AUC) 0.985; p = 0.014) and Gleamer BoneView™(sensitivity 1.00, specificity 0.98, diagnostic power (AUC) 0.99; p = 0.006). This study highlights the utility and potential applications of artificial intelligence in modern medicine, emphasizing ChatGPT 4 as a valuable tool for enhancing diagnostic capabilities in the field of medical imaging.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00402-024-05298-2.

Keywords

Fracture detection
Distal radius fracture
Radiology
ChatGPT
Artificial intelligence
Hand surgery
Universitätsklinik München (6933)Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

In 2019, fractures of the distal radius ranked third in Germany with a total of 72,087 cases, surpassed only by femoral neck and femoral pertrochanteric fractures. Unlike femoral fractures, which are 20 times more common in populations over 70 years of age than in those under 70, radius fractures often also affect younger populations [1]. Distal radius injuries in older individuals are typically caused by low-energy trauma. In contrast, younger individuals tend to experience higher energy trauma [2]. In the clinical management of these conditions, treatment approaches may involve surgical intervention for complicated and displaced fractures or non-operative methods for simple and non-displaced fractures. The indications for each approach may overlap [3]. Due to the high incidence of forearm and hand fractures and the complications if not adequately diagnosed and treated, selecting the appropriate diagnostic and treatment regimen is of significant importance [4]. Consequently, the financial burden on a country is significant. This is demonstrated by the annual expenses of €540 million for treatment in the Netherlands [5].

In addition to the clinical examination of the hand and concomitant injuries, radiological imaging plays a key role in diagnosing a fracture and determining the treatment regime. The classification of the Osteosynthesis Working Group (AO) is an established assessment scheme for distal radius fractures. By using this system, work processes can be systematised and optimised, leading to a more precise diagnosis, more effective treatment strategies, and ultimately improved clinical outcomes for patients [6]. In addition, the work of medical staff at LMU University Hospital Munich has been supported by Gleamer BoneView™ (Gleamer, Paris, France) since 2022 [7]. Gleamer BoneView™ is an artificial intelligence (AI) optimised for radiological fracture detection. In contrast to artificial intelligence algorithms that use large language models (LLM), GleamerAI cannot translate radiological image information into language or a precise classification system. OpenAI, an LLM that was officially launched in November 2022, can produce speech and has already demonstrated its ability to perform medical tasks, such as passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) [8]. A previous study has demonstrated that chatbots utilising ChatGPT 4 technology are capable of producing AO codes from radiological reports. These were significantly faster, but much less accurate in the creation of AO codes [9]. On 25 September 2023, the previously text-based language model ChatGPT 4 received an update for image input and processing. Visual capabilities based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) were achieved through a training process similar to that used for ChatGPT 4 text processing [10]. Firstly, ChatGPT 4 had to anticipate the next words within a document using textural and visual data sets. Secondly, refinement was achieved by adding additional data, supported by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) [11].

This improvement indicates a promising use of ChatGPT 4 in clinical practice to diagnose and classify fractures and to support and supplement clinical practicians. To assess this question, the accuracy and efficiency of ChatGPT 4, GleamerAI, a medical student, radiologists and a physician were compared in the detection of distal radius fractures presented to the Division of Hand, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery within the LMU University Hospital Munich.

Methods

In the present study, we aimed to examine the diagnostic power of the AI chatbot ChatGPT 4 in the detection of distal radius fractures in wrist X-rays and compare it to the radiological report of a board-certified radiologist, a hand surgery resident, a medical student and Gleamer BoneView™ (Gleamer AI, France), a commercially available AI algorithm for fracture detection in radiographs. For this purpose, we have included 100 wrist X-rays with and 50 without distal radius fracture of patients who had received radiographs due to a suspected fracture in this study. The X-ray images were irreversibly anonymised, and a combined image was created from the ap and lateral view (Figs. 1 and 2). Afterwards, the order of the images was randomised for the following examination.

Fig. 1 Combined image of wrist x-rays of a patient with distal radius fracture

Fig. 2 Combined image of wrist x-rays of a patient without distal radius fracture

For the radiological evaluation with ChatGPT 4, the radiological images were uploaded one after the other, and the following standardised sequence of consecutive questions was used. If ChatGPT 4 did not answer one of the questions adequately, the question was paraphrased and asked again.

The following image shows the ap and lateral view of a wrist x-ray of the same person. Can you detect a fracture on the image? Yes or No.

If the answer was yes – Which bone is broken in the uploaded image?

The images were also examined in the same order by a hand surgery resident and a medical student in the clinical training phase regarding the above-mentioned questions. In addition, the images were analysed using the AI software BoneView™. As the software only marks fractures with a square, the marking of the distal radius in the presence of a fracture was evaluated as the correct detection of the fracture and localisation. The radiological reports of a board-certified radiologist were used as reference.

For statistical analysis of distal radius fracture detection rate, sensitivity and specificity were calculated and receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed. McNemar’s test was performed to analyse the sensitivity and specificity of fracture detection. All data are given as means and standard error of the mean. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 150 wrist radiographs from the Division of Hand, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery within the LMU University Hospital Munich were included in this study. Among the 100 distal radius fractures, 20 fractures were classified as type A, 4 as type B, and 76 as type C according to the AO classification for distal radius fracture.

We conducted an analysis of the sensitivity (n = 100) and specificity (n = 50) of ChatGPT 4, hand surgery resident, medical student and Gleamer BoneView™ for distal radius fracture detection. McNemar’s test was conducted for statistical comparison (Fig. 3). The results revealed a sensitivity of 0.88 (0.033) for ChatGPT 4, 0.99 (0.010) for hand surgery resident, 0.98 (0.014) for medical student, and 1.00 (0.000) for Gleamer BoneView™. McNemar’s test indicated a significantly lower sensitivity of ChatGPT 4 compared to hand surgery resident (p = 0.003), medical student (p = 0.013), and Gleamer BoneView™ (p < 0.001). Conversely, specificity was 0.98 (0.020) for ChatGPT 4, 0.98 (0.020) for hand surgery resident, 0.72 (0.064) for medical student, and 0.98 (0.020) for Gleamer BoneView™. Statistical analysis demonstrated significantly lower specificity of medical student compared to ChatGPT 4, hand surgery resident, and Gleamer BoneView™ (all p < 0.001).

Fig. 3 Sensitivity (A) and Specificity (B) of distal radius fracture detection rate. A Sensitivity is 0.88 (0.033) for ChatGPT 4, 0.99 (0.010) for hand surgery resident, 0.98 (0.014) for medical student, and 1.00 (0.000) for Gleamer BoneView™. McNemar’s test revealed significantly lower sensitivity of ChatGPT 4 than hand surgery resident (p = 0.003), medical student (p = 0.013), and Gleamer BoneView™ (p < 0.001). B Specificity is 0.98 (0.020) for ChatGPT 4, 0.98 (0.020) for hand surgery resident, 0.72 (0.064) for medical student, and 0.98 (0.020) for Gleamer BoneView™. McNemar’s test revealed significantly lower speficity of medical student than ChatGPT 4, hand surgery resident, and Gleamer BoneView™ (all p < 0.001)

The diagnostic power of each group was assessed using a receiver operating characteristic curve of sensitivity and specificity (Fig. 4). The respective area under the curve (AUC) was calculated as 0.93 (0.023) for ChatGPT 4, 0.985 (0.013) for hand surgery resident, 0.85 (0.040) for medical student, and 0.99 (0.012) for Gleamer BoneView™. AUC analysis revealed that hand surgery resident and Gleamer BoneView™ exhibited the highest diagnostic power without any statistical differences between them (p = 0.741). Both demonstrated significantly higher diagnostic power than ChatGPT 4 (p = 0.014 and p = 0.006, respectively) and medical student (both p < 0.001). The comparison of ChatGPT 4 and medical student showed a significantly higher diagnostic power of ChatGPT 4 than medical student (p = 0.04, Table 1).

Fig. 4 Receiver operating characteristic curve of the distal radius fracture detection rate. Area under the curve is 0.93 (0.023) for ChatGPT 4, 0.985 (0.013) for hand surgery resident, 0.85 (0.040) for medical student, and 0.99 (0.012) for Gleamer BoneView™

Table 1 Comparison of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of ChatGPT4, hand surgery resident, medical student, and Gleamer BoneView™

	Difference in AUC	Confidence interval	p-Value	
ChatGPT 4 – Hand surgery resident	-0.055	-0.099 / -0.011	0.014	
ChatGPT 4 – Medical student	0.08	0.004 / 0.156	0.04	
ChatGPT 4 – Gleamer BoneView™	-0.06	-0.103 / -0.017	0.006	
Hand surgery resident – Medical student	0.135	0.067 / 0.203	< 0.001	
Hand surgery resident – Gleamer BoneView™	-0.005	-0.035 / 0.146	0.741	
Medical student – Gleamer BoneView™	-0.140	-0.209 / -0.071	< 0.001	

In summary, ChatGPT 4 demonstrates good diagnostic power in detecting distal radius fractures in wrist radiographs.

Discussion

The diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT 4 was compared with that of a hand surgery resident, a medical student, and the AI algorithm Gleamer BoneView™. The study shows that ChatGPT 4 has lower diagnostic sensitivity compared to the hand surgery resident and Gleamer BoneView™, but higher precision than a medical student.

We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to quantify the diagnostic power of each observer. The area under the curve (AUC) for ChatGPT 4 was high at 0.93, reflecting good diagnostic capability, although it was lower than the AUC of the hand surgery resident and Gleamer BoneView™. In direct comparison, ChatGPT 4 exhibited significantly higher diagnostic power than the medical student, as demonstrated by their respective AUCs.

Recent studies showed various applications of Chat GPT in medicine. Application in radiology consist for example of translating medical reports into plain language to enhance the understanding of patients [12–14]. It also has the potential to support radiological decision-making [15–18] and to generate AO Codes from radiologists’ reports [19]. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study to date that has analysed medical X-ray images using ChatGPT 4. This would create a new application for ChatGPT 4.

Previous studies have investigated the use of artificial intelligence systems to improve and aid in diagnosing distal radius fractures by radiologists. Guermazi et al. showed that AI reduced the average reading time per examination by 6.3 s and increased the sensitivity [7]. A good diagnostic rate of fractures was acquired using an VGG16 model by Kunihiro et al. [19]. In 2021, Tobler et al. utilised a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) to detect and classify distal radius fractures [20]. This study demonstrated the effective use of DCNNs as adjunctive tools for second readings. This work provides a basis for using ChatGPT 4, a CNN based model, in a similar task. However, models intended for fracture classification were not yet ready for clinical application. In line with previous findings Zech et al. demonstrated high accuracy of pediatric wrist fractures using an objective-detection-based deep learning approach [21].

Olczak et al. [22], Anttila et al. [23], Gan et al. [24], Kim and MacKinnon [25], Thian et al. [26], Oka et al. [19] and Lindsey et al. [27] have all reported high accuracies in fracture detection on radiographs, with AUCs ranging from 0.918 to 0.98. These positive results are consistent with our own findings of 0.93 AUC using ChatGPT 4, despite not being specifically programmed for this task.

Our study had limitations. Firstly, the study was retrospective in nature and the radiographs did not include clinical information, which resulted in a lack of important parameters such as pain localisation [28]. Secondly, the training data for ChatGPT 4 is unknown to us. We cannot comment on the size of the dataset that the model was trained on. However, deep learning models perform worse when applied to new data sets and different patients [29]. Therefore, our setting for ChatGPT 4 was more difficult, as the offered scenario of fracture images was not available for training. In the context of fracture diagnostics, our investigation incorporated 150 wrist radiographs from the Division of Hand, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery within the LMU University Hospital Munich. The fracture cohort consisted of 100 distal radius fractures, stratified into 20 type A, 4 type B, and a predominant 76 type C fractures as per the AO classification criteria. Different trauma centres report fewer type C fractures and more type A and B fractures [30, 31]. Therefore, our population favors higher diagnostic accuracy, as type C fractures are usually easier to detect.

Conclusion

In the current study we were able to analyse the diagnostic power of ChatGPT 4 and compare it to a hand surgery resident, a medical student and Gleamer BoneView™. ChatGPT 4 has a good sensitivity (0.88), specificity (0.98), and diagnostic power assessed through AUC calculation (0.93). Although ChatGPT 4 had a significantly lower diagnostic power than the hand surgery resident and Gleamer BoneView™, it had a significantly higher diagnostic power than the medical student. It should always be considered that ChatGPT was not designed for fracture detection and the image function has only been available for a few months.

Our findings collectively suggest that while ChatGPT 4 presents a valuable tool for distal radius fracture detection, it currently lacks the diagnostic proficiency of hand surgery professionals and advanced imaging technology, such as Gleamer BoneView™. As technology continues to advance, future enhancements to ChatGPT models may further improve their diagnostic capabilities. Our study contributes valuable insights into the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence applications in medical imaging, emphasizing the importance of continued collaboration between technology developers and healthcare professionals to optimise diagnostic outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Acknowledgements

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This study was conducted in accordance with the relevant ethical and legal guidelines and regulations. No patient-related data was used. All x-ray images have been irreversibly anonymized. A separate ethical approval is not required.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

This article has been retracted. Please see the retraction notice for more detail: 10.1007/s00402-024-05554-5

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

9/14/2024

This article has been retracted. Please see the Retraction Notice for more detail: 10.1007/s00402-024-05554-5
==== Refs
References

1. Rupp M Walter N Pfeifer C Lang S Kerschbaum M Krutsch W Baumann F Alt V The incidence of Fractures among the Adult Population of Germany-an analysis from 2009 through 2019 Dtsch Arztebl Int 2021 118 40 665 669 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0238 34140088
Rupp M, Walter N, Pfeifer C, Lang S, Kerschbaum M, Krutsch W, Baumann F, Alt V (2021) The incidence of Fractures among the Adult Population of Germany-an analysis from 2009 through 2019. Dtsch Arztebl Int 118(40):665–669. 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.023834140088 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0238
2. Amin S Achenbach SJ Atkinson EJ Khosla S Melton LJ 3rd Trends in fracture incidence: a population-based study over 20 years J Bone Min Res 2014 29 3 581 589 10.1002/jbmr.2072
Amin S, Achenbach SJ, Atkinson EJ, Khosla S, Melton LJ 3rd (2014) Trends in fracture incidence: a population-based study over 20 years. J Bone Min Res 29(3):581–589. 10.1002/jbmr.207210.1002/jbmr.2072
3. Lichtman DM Bindra RR Boyer MI Treatment of distal radius fractures J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010 18 3 180 189 10.5435/00124635-201003000-00007 20190108
Lichtman DM, Bindra RR, Boyer MI et al (2010) Treatment of distal radius fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18(3):180–189. 10.5435/00124635-201003000-0000720190108 10.5435/00124635-201003000-00007
4. Cavalcanti Kussmaul A Kuehlein T Langer MF Ayache A Unglaub F The treatment of closed finger and metacarpal fractures Dtsch Arztebl Int 2023 120 50 855 862 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0226 37963039
Cavalcanti Kussmaul A, Kuehlein T, Langer MF, Ayache A, Unglaub F (2023) The treatment of closed finger and metacarpal fractures. Dtsch Arztebl Int 120(50):855–862. 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.022637963039 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0226
5. de Putter CE Selles RW Polinder S Panneman MJM Hovius SER van Beeck EF Economic impact of hand and wrist injuries: health-care costs and productivity costs in a population-based study J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012 94 9 e56 10.2106/JBJS.K.00561 22552678
de Putter CE, Selles RW, Polinder S, Panneman MJM, Hovius SER, van Beeck EF (2012) Economic impact of hand and wrist injuries: health-care costs and productivity costs in a population-based study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(9):e56. 10.2106/JBJS.K.0056122552678 10.2106/JBJS.K.00561
6. Waever D, Madsen ML, Rölfing JHD, Borris LC, Henriksen M, Nagel LL, Thorninger R (2018) Distal radius fractures are difficult to classify. Injury 49 Suppl 1S29–S32. 10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30299-7
7. Guermazi A Tannoury C Kompel AJ Improving Radiographic fracture Recognition Performance and Efficiency using Artificial Intelligence Radiology 2022 302 3 627 636 10.1148/radiol.210937 34931859
Guermazi A, Tannoury C, Kompel AJ et al (2022) Improving Radiographic fracture Recognition Performance and Efficiency using Artificial Intelligence. Radiology 302(3):627–636. 10.1148/radiol.21093734931859 10.1148/radiol.210937
8. Gilson A Safranek CW Huang T Socrates V Chi L Taylor RA Chartash D How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing examination? The implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment JMIR Med Educ 2023 9 e45312 10.2196/45312 36753318
Gilson A, Safranek CW, Huang T, Socrates V, Chi L, Taylor RA, Chartash D (2023) How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing examination? The implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment. JMIR Med Educ 9:e45312. 10.2196/4531236753318 10.2196/45312
9. Russe MF Fink A Ngo H Tran H Bamberg F Reisert M Rau A Performance of ChatGPT, human radiologists, and context-aware ChatGPT in identifying AO codes from radiology reports Sci Rep 2023 13 1 14215 10.1038/s41598-023-41512-8 37648742
Russe MF, Fink A, Ngo H, Tran H, Bamberg F, Reisert M, Rau A (2023) Performance of ChatGPT, human radiologists, and context-aware ChatGPT in identifying AO codes from radiology reports. Sci Rep 13(1):14215. 10.1038/s41598-023-41512-837648742 10.1038/s41598-023-41512-8
10. OpenAI J, Achiam SA, Sandhini Agarwal et al (2023) GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv:2303–08774 [cs.CL]. 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774
11. Long Ouyang JW, Xu Jiang D, Almeida et al (2022) Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. 10.48550/arXiv.2203.02155. arXiv:2203.02155 [cs.CL]
12. Lyu Q Tan J Zapadka ME Ponnatapura J Niu C Myers KJ Wang G Whitlow CT Translating radiology reports into plain language using ChatGPT and GPT-4 with prompt learning: results, limitations, and potential Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art 2023 6 1 9 10.1186/s42492-023-00136-5 37198498
Lyu Q, Tan J, Zapadka ME, Ponnatapura J, Niu C, Myers KJ, Wang G, Whitlow CT (2023) Translating radiology reports into plain language using ChatGPT and GPT-4 with prompt learning: results, limitations, and potential. Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art 6(1):9. 10.1186/s42492-023-00136-537198498 10.1186/s42492-023-00136-5
13. Jeblick K Schachtner B Dexl J ChatGPT makes medicine easy to swallow: an exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports Eur Radiol 2023 10.1007/s00330-023-10213-1 37794249
Jeblick K, Schachtner B, Dexl J et al (2023) ChatGPT makes medicine easy to swallow: an exploratory case study on simplified radiology reports. Eur Radiol. 10.1007/s00330-023-10213-137794249 10.1007/s00330-023-10213-1
14. Li H Moon JT Iyer D Decoding radiology reports: potential application of OpenAI ChatGPT to enhance patient understanding of diagnostic reports Clin Imaging 2023 101 137 141 10.1016/j.clinimag.2023.06.008 37336169
Li H, Moon JT, Iyer D et al (2023) Decoding radiology reports: potential application of OpenAI ChatGPT to enhance patient understanding of diagnostic reports. Clin Imaging 101:137–141. 10.1016/j.clinimag.2023.06.00837336169 10.1016/j.clinimag.2023.06.008
15. Barash Y Klang E Konen E Sorin V ChatGPT-4 assistance in optimizing Emergency Department Radiology referrals and Imaging Selection J Am Coll Radiol 2023 20 10 998 1003 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.06.009 37423350
Barash Y, Klang E, Konen E, Sorin V (2023) ChatGPT-4 assistance in optimizing Emergency Department Radiology referrals and Imaging Selection. J Am Coll Radiol 20(10):998–1003. 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.06.00937423350 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.06.009
16. Rao A Kim J Kamineni M Pang M Lie W Succi Evaluating ChatGPT as an Adjunct for Radiologic decision-making medRxiv 2023 10.1101/2023.02.02.23285399 38014095
Rao A, Kim J, Kamineni M, Pang M, Lie W, Succi MD (2023) Evaluating ChatGPT as an Adjunct for Radiologic decision-making. medRxiv. 10.1101/2023.02.02.2328539938014095 10.1101/2023.02.02.23285399
17. Huang Y Gomaa A Semrau S Benchmarking ChatGPT-4 on a radiation oncology in-training exam and Red Journal Gray Zone cases: potentials and challenges for Ai-assisted medical education and decision making in radiation oncology Front Oncol 2023 13 1265024 10.3389/fonc.2023.1265024 37790756
Huang Y, Gomaa A, Semrau S et al (2023) Benchmarking ChatGPT-4 on a radiation oncology in-training exam and Red Journal Gray Zone cases: potentials and challenges for Ai-assisted medical education and decision making in radiation oncology. Front Oncol 13:1265024. 10.3389/fonc.2023.126502437790756 10.3389/fonc.2023.1265024
18. Patil NS Huang RS van der Pol CB Larocque N Using Artificial Intelligence Chatbots as a radiologic decision-making Tool for Liver Imaging: do ChatGPT and Bard communicate information consistent with the ACR appropriateness Criteria? J Am Coll Radiol 2023 20 10 1010 1013 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.07.010 37517768
Patil NS, Huang RS, van der Pol CB, Larocque N (2023) Using Artificial Intelligence Chatbots as a radiologic decision-making Tool for Liver Imaging: do ChatGPT and Bard communicate information consistent with the ACR appropriateness Criteria? J Am Coll Radiol 20(10):1010–1013. 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.07.01037517768 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.07.010
19. Oka K Shiode R Yoshii Y Tanaka H Iwahashi T Murase T Artificial intelligence to diagnosis distal radius fracture using biplane plain X-rays J Orthop Surg Res 2021 16 1 694 10.1186/s13018-021-02845-0 34823550
Oka K, Shiode R, Yoshii Y, Tanaka H, Iwahashi T, Murase T (2021) Artificial intelligence to diagnosis distal radius fracture using biplane plain X-rays. J Orthop Surg Res 16(1):694. 10.1186/s13018-021-02845-034823550 10.1186/s13018-021-02845-0
20. Tobler P Cyriac J Kovacs BK AI-based detection and classification of distal radius fractures using low-effort data labeling: evaluation of applicability and effect of training set size Eur Radiol 2021 31 9 6816 6824 10.1007/s00330-021-07811-2 33742228
Tobler P, Cyriac J, Kovacs BK et al (2021) AI-based detection and classification of distal radius fractures using low-effort data labeling: evaluation of applicability and effect of training set size. Eur Radiol 31(9):6816–6824. 10.1007/s00330-021-07811-233742228 10.1007/s00330-021-07811-2
21. Zech JR Carotenuto G Igbinoba Z Tran CV Insley E Baccarella A Wong TT Detecting pediatric wrist fractures using deep-learning-based object detection Pediatr Radiol 2023 53 6 1125 1134 10.1007/s00247-023-05588-8 36650360
Zech JR, Carotenuto G, Igbinoba Z, Tran CV, Insley E, Baccarella A, Wong TT (2023) Detecting pediatric wrist fractures using deep-learning-based object detection. Pediatr Radiol 53(6):1125–1134. 10.1007/s00247-023-05588-836650360 10.1007/s00247-023-05588-8
22. Olczak J Pavlopoulos J Prijs J Ijpma FFA Doornberg JN Lundström C Hedlund J Gordon M Presenting artificial intelligence, deep learning, and machine learning studies to clinicians and healthcare stakeholders: an introductory reference with a guideline and a Clinical AI Research (CAIR) checklist proposal Acta Orthop 2021 92 5 513 525 10.1080/17453674.2021.1918389 33988081
Olczak J, Pavlopoulos J, Prijs J, Ijpma FFA, Doornberg JN, Lundström C, Hedlund J, Gordon M (2021) Presenting artificial intelligence, deep learning, and machine learning studies to clinicians and healthcare stakeholders: an introductory reference with a guideline and a Clinical AI Research (CAIR) checklist proposal. Acta Orthop 92(5):513–525. 10.1080/17453674.2021.191838933988081 10.1080/17453674.2021.1918389
23. Anttila TT Karjalainen TV Mäkelä TO Waris EM Lindfors NC Leminen MM Ryhänen JO Detecting Distal Radius fractures using a segmentation-based Deep Learning Model J Digit Imaging 2023 36 2 679 687 10.1007/s10278-022-00741-5 36542269
Anttila TT, Karjalainen TV, Mäkelä TO, Waris EM, Lindfors NC, Leminen MM, Ryhänen JO (2023) Detecting Distal Radius fractures using a segmentation-based Deep Learning Model. J Digit Imaging 36(2):679–687. 10.1007/s10278-022-00741-536542269 10.1007/s10278-022-00741-5
24. Gan K Xu D Lin Y Artificial intelligence detection of distal radius fractures: a comparison between the convolutional neural network and professional assessments Acta Orthop 2019 90 4 394 400 10.1080/17453674.2019.1600125 30942136
Gan K, Xu D, Lin Y et al (2019) Artificial intelligence detection of distal radius fractures: a comparison between the convolutional neural network and professional assessments. Acta Orthop 90(4):394–400. 10.1080/17453674.2019.160012530942136 10.1080/17453674.2019.1600125
25. Kim DH MacKinnon T Artificial intelligence in fracture detection: transfer learning from deep convolutional neural networks Clin Radiol 2018 73 5 439 445 10.1016/j.crad.2017.11.015 29269036
Kim DH, MacKinnon T (2018) Artificial intelligence in fracture detection: transfer learning from deep convolutional neural networks. Clin Radiol 73(5):439–445. 10.1016/j.crad.2017.11.01529269036 10.1016/j.crad.2017.11.015
26. Thian YL Li Y Jagmohan P Sia D Chan VEY Tan RT Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Fracture Detection and localization on wrist radiographs Radiol Artif Intell 2019 1 1 e180001 10.1148/ryai.2019180001 33937780
Thian YL, Li Y, Jagmohan P, Sia D, Chan VEY, Tan RT (2019) Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Fracture Detection and localization on wrist radiographs. Radiol Artif Intell 1(1):e180001. 10.1148/ryai.201918000133937780 10.1148/ryai.2019180001
27. Lindsey R Daluiski A Chopra S Deep neural network improves fracture detection by clinicians Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018 115 45 11591 11596 10.1073/pnas.1806905115 30348771
Lindsey R, Daluiski A, Chopra S et al (2018) Deep neural network improves fracture detection by clinicians. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115(45):11591–11596. 10.1073/pnas.180690511530348771 10.1073/pnas.1806905115
28. Castillo C Steffens T Sim L Caffery L The effect of clinical information on radiology reporting: a systematic review J Med Radiat Sci 2021 68 1 60 74 10.1002/jmrs.424 32870580
Castillo C, Steffens T, Sim L, Caffery L (2021) The effect of clinical information on radiology reporting: a systematic review. J Med Radiat Sci 68(1):60–74. 10.1002/jmrs.42432870580 10.1002/jmrs.424
29. Raisuddin AM Vaattovaara E Nevalainen M Critical evaluation of deep neural networks for wrist fracture detection Sci Rep 2021 11 1 6006 10.1038/s41598-021-85570-2 33727668
Raisuddin AM, Vaattovaara E, Nevalainen M et al (2021) Critical evaluation of deep neural networks for wrist fracture detection. Sci Rep 11(1):6006. 10.1038/s41598-021-85570-233727668 10.1038/s41598-021-85570-2
30. Sander AL Leiblein M Sommer K Marzi I Schneidmuller D Frank J Epidemiology and treatment of distal radius fractures: current concept based on fracture severity and not on age Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2020 46 3 585 590 10.1007/s00068-018-1023-7 30276724
Sander AL, Leiblein M, Sommer K, Marzi I, Schneidmuller D, Frank J (2020) Epidemiology and treatment of distal radius fractures: current concept based on fracture severity and not on age. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 46(3):585–590. 10.1007/s00068-018-1023-730276724 10.1007/s00068-018-1023-7
31. Koo OT Tan DM Chong AK Distal radius fractures: an epidemiological review Orthop Surg 2013 5 3 209 213 10.1111/os.12045 24002839
Koo OT, Tan DM, Chong AK (2013) Distal radius fractures: an epidemiological review. Orthop Surg 5(3):209–213. 10.1111/os.1204524002839 10.1111/os.12045
