Abstract
Early and accurate detection of ankle fractures is crucial for reducing future complications. Radiographs are the most abundant imaging techniques for assessing fractures. We believe deep learning (DL) methods, through adequately trained deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs), can assess radiographic images fast and accurate without human intervention. Herein, we aimed to assess the performance of two different DCNNs in detecting ankle fractures using radiographs compared to the ground truth.
In this retrospective study, our DCNNs were trained using radiographs obtained from 1050 patients with ankle fracture and the same number of individuals with otherwise healthy ankles. Inception V3 and Renet50 pretrained models were used in our algorithms. Danis-Weber classification method was used. Out of 1050, 72 individuals were labeled as occult fractures as they were not detected in the primary radiographic assessment. Using single-view radiographs was compared with 3-views (anteroposterior, mortise, lateral) for training the DCNNs.
Our DCNNs showed a better performance using 3-views images versus single-view based on greater values for accuracy, F-score, and area under the curve (AUC). The sensitivity and specificity in detection of ankle fractures using 3-views were 97.5% and 93.9% using Resnet50 compared to 98.7% and 98.6 using inception V3, respectively. Resnet50 missed 3 occult fractures while Inception V3 missed only one case.
Clinical Significance The performance of our DCNNs showed a promising potential that can be considered in developing the currently used image interpretation programs or as a separate assistant to the clinicians to detect ankle fractures faster and more precisely.
Level of evidence III
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None declared
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The protocol of this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Massachusetts General Hospital (IRB; no. 2015P000464).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Place of study: This study was conducted in Foot and Ankle Research and Innovation Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical school, Boston, 02114, MA
Email: sashkaniesfahani{at}mgh.harvard.edu
Email: rohanaminbhimani{at}gmail.com
Email: g.m.kerkhoffs{at}amsterdamumc.nl
Email: m.maas{at}amsterdamumc.nl
Email: daniel.guss{at}mgh.harvard.edu
Email: cwdigiovanni{at}partners.org
Email: Blubberts{at}partners.org
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript are available as per request.