Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Pediatric craniofacial fractures are difficult to assess on computed tomography (CT) because growth-related anatomy and subtle fracture patterns can obscure clinically relevant findings. We evaluated a lightweight 2.5D deep-learning approach after expansion of an earlier 63-examination pilot. Methods: The retrospective cohort comprised 209 fully anonymized pediatric craniofacial CT examinations from 209 unique patients, with exactly one examination per patient (103 fracture-positive and 106 fracture-negative). The center contributions were Katowice (n = 135), Olsztyn (n = 34), and Lodz (n = 40). Central axial, coronal, and sagittal reconstructions were stacked as a three-channel input to an ImageNet-initialized ResNet-18. The historical experiment retained a stratified 146/63 training/development–validation split. Reviewer-requested post hoc analyses comprised descriptive calibration, controlled retraining without vertical flipping, three repetitions of five-fold cross-validation, input and initialization ablations, and leave-one-center-out testing. Results: On the 63-examination development-validation subset, AUROC was 0.934 (95% CI 0.862–0.989) and AUPRC was 0.938 (95% CI 0.878–0.987). Repeated five-fold cross-validation yielded mean AUROC 0.899 (SD 0.033) and AUPRC 0.891 (SD 0.040). Leave-one-center-out AUROC varied from 0.604 (SD 0.025) for Katowice to 0.793 (SD 0.097) for Lodz; the Olsztyn holdout permitted sensitivity-only assessment. Conclusions: The original split and repeated cross-validation support an internal feasibility signal, but the post hoc center-held-out results show that performance was not uniformly transportable across institutions. The findings do not establish external validity or clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ignac et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: