Development and reporting of artificial intelligence in osteoporosis management.

Abstract

An abundance of medical data and enhanced computational power have led to a surge in artificial intelligence (AI) applications. Published studies involving AI in bone and osteoporosis research have increased exponentially, raising the need for transparent model development and reporting strategies. This review offers a comprehensive overview and systematic quality assessment of AI articles in osteoporosis while highlighting recent advancements. A systematic search in the PubMed database, from December 17, 2020 to February 1, 2023 was conducted to identify AI articles that relate to osteoporosis. The quality assessment of the studies relied on the systematic evaluation of 12 quality items derived from the minimum information about clinical artificial intelligence modeling checklist. The systematic search yielded 97 articles that fell into 5 areas; bone properties assessment (11 articles), osteoporosis classification (26 articles), fracture detection/classification (25 articles), risk prediction (24 articles), and bone segmentation (11 articles). The average quality score for each study area was 8.9 (range: 7-11) for bone properties assessment, 7.8 (range: 5-11) for osteoporosis classification, 8.4 (range: 7-11) for fracture detection, 7.6 (range: 4-11) for risk prediction, and 9.0 (range: 6-11) for bone segmentation. A sixth area, AI-driven clinical decision support, identified the studies from the 5 preceding areas that aimed to improve clinician efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, and patient outcomes through AI-driven models and opportunistic screening by automating or assisting with specific clinical tasks in complex scenarios. The current work highlights disparities in study quality and a lack of standardized reporting practices. Despite these limitations, a wide range of models and examination strategies have shown promising outcomes to aid in the earlier diagnosis and improve clinical decision-making. Through careful consideration of sources of bias in model performance assessment, the field can build confidence in AI-based approaches, ultimately leading to improved clinical workflows and patient outcomes.