TABLE 2.
Diagnostic Performance of Deep Learning Methods for Detecting Fractures
| Fracture site | Dataset size | CNN used | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hip 33 | 805 | GooLeNet | 0.98 | NS | NS | 94% |
| Hip 34 | 3,605 | DenseNet | 0.98 | 98% | 84% | 91% |
| Hip 35 | 3,346 | VGG-16 | NS | 94% | 97% | 96% |
| Shoulder 37 | 1,891 | ResNet | 0.99 | 99% | 97% | 95% |
| Wrist 40 | 7,356 | ResNet | 0.90 | 98% | 73% | NS |
| Wrist 38 | 1,389 | Inception | 0.95 | 90% | 88% | NS |
| Wrist 39 | 256,000 | VGG-16 | NS | NS | NS | 82% |
| Ankle 41 | 596 | Xception | NS | 73% | 76% | 75% |
| All Sites 36 | 135,409 | U-Net | 0.99 | 94% | 95% | NS |