Discrimination of Low-Energy Acetabular Fractures from Controls Using Computed Tomography-Based Bone Characteristics

Detecting hip osteoarthritis on clinical CT: a deep learning application based on 2-D summation images derived from CT

We developed and compared deep learning models to detect hip osteoarthritis on clinical CT. The CT-based summation images, CT-AP, that resemble X-ray radiographs can detect radiographic hip osteoarthritis and in the absence of large training data, a reliable deep learning model can be optimized by combining CT-AP and X-ray images.

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we aimed to investigate the applicability of deep learning (DL) to assess radiographic hip osteoarthritis (rHOA) on computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

The study data consisted of 94 abdominopelvic clinical CTs and 5659 hip X-ray images collected from Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK). The CT slices were sequentially summed to create radiograph-like 2-D images named CT-AP. X-ray and CT-AP images were classified as rHOA if they had osteoarthritic changes corresponding to Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or higher. The study data was split into 55% training, 30% validation, and 15% test sets. A pretrained ResNet18 was optimized for a classification task of rHOA vs. no-rHOA. Five models were trained using (1) X-rays, (2) downsampled X-rays, (3) combination of CT-AP and X-ray images, (4) combination of CT-AP and downsampled X-ray images, and (5) CT-AP images.

RESULTS

Amongst the five models, Model-3 and Model-5 performed best in detecting rHOA from the CT-AP images. Model-3 detected rHOA on the test set of CT-AP images with a balanced accuracy of 82.2% and was able to discriminate rHOA from no-rHOA with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) of 0.93 [0.75-0.99]. Model-5 detected rHOA on the test set at a balanced accuracy of 82.2% and classified rHOA from no-rHOA with an ROC AUC of 0.89 [0.67-0.97].

CONCLUSION

CT-based summation images that resemble radiographs can be used to detect rHOA. In addition, in the absence of large training data, a reliable DL model can be optimized by combining CT-AP and X-ray images.

Applications of Machine Learning in Bone and Mineral Research

In this unprecedented era of the overwhelming volume of medical data, machine learning can be a promising tool that may shed light on an individualized approach and a better understanding of the disease in the field of osteoporosis research, similar to that in other research fields. This review aimed to provide an overview of the latest studies using machine learning to address issues, mainly focusing on osteoporosis and fractures. Machine learning models for diagnosing and classifying osteoporosis and detecting fractures from images have shown promising performance. Fracture risk prediction is another promising field of research, and studies are being conducted using various data sources. However, these approaches may be biased due to the nature of the techniques or the quality of the data. Therefore, more studies based on the proposed guidelines are needed to improve the technical feasibility and generalizability of artificial intelligence algorithms.

Machine Learning Solutions for Osteoporosis-A Review

Osteoporosis and its clinical consequence, bone fracture, is a multifactorial disease that has been the object of extensive research. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) have enabled the field of artificial intelligence (AI) to make impressive breakthroughs in complex data environments where human capacity to identify high-dimensional relationships is limited. The field of osteoporosis is one such domain, notwithstanding technical and clinical concerns regarding the application of ML methods. This qualitative review is intended to outline some of these concerns and to inform stakeholders interested in applying AI for improved management of osteoporosis. A systemic search in PubMed and Web of Science resulted in 89 studies for inclusion in the review. These covered one or more of four main areas in osteoporosis management: bone properties assessment (n = 13), osteoporosis classification (n = 34), fracture detection (n = 32), and risk prediction (n = 14). Reporting and methodological quality was determined by means of a 12-point checklist. In general, the studies were of moderate quality with a wide range (mode score 6, range 2 to 11). Major limitations were identified in a significant number of studies. Incomplete reporting, especially over model selection, inadequate splitting of data, and the low proportion of studies with external validation were among the most frequent problems. However, the use of images for opportunistic osteoporosis diagnosis or fracture detection emerged as a promising approach and one of the main contributions that ML could bring to the osteoporosis field. Efforts to develop ML-based models for identifying novel fracture risk factors and improving fracture prediction are additional promising lines of research. Some studies also offered insights into the potential for model-based decision-making. Finally, to avoid some of the common pitfalls, the use of standardized checklists in developing and sharing the results of ML models should be encouraged. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).