Background and purpose -Artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning (DL), and machine learning (ML) have become common research fields in orthopedics and medicine in general. Engineers perform much of the work. While they gear the results towards healthcare professionals, the difference in competencies and goals creates challenges for collaboration and knowledge exchange. We aim to provide clinicians with a context and understanding of AI research by facilitating communication between creators, researchers, clinicians, and readers of medical AI and ML research.Methods and results -We present the common tasks, considerations, and pitfalls (both methodological and ethical) that clinicians will encounter in AI research. We discuss the following topics: labeling, missing data, training, testing, and overfitting. Common performance and outcome measures for various AI and ML tasks are presented, including accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, Dice score, the area under the curve, and ROC curves. We also discuss ethical considerations in terms of privacy, fairness, autonomy, safety, responsibility, and liability regarding data collecting or sharing.Interpretation -We have developed guidelines for reporting medical AI research to clinicians in the run-up to a broader consensus process. The proposed guidelines consist of a Clinical Artificial Intelligence Research (CAIR) checklist and specific performance metrics guidelines to present and evaluate research using AI components. Researchers, engineers, clinicians, and other stakeholders can use these proposal guidelines and the CAIR checklist to read, present, and evaluate AI research geared towards a healthcare setting.Machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and artificial intelligence (AI) have become increasingly common in orthopedics and other medical fields. Artificial intelligence, defined in 1955, is "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines," where intelligence is "the ability to learn and perform suitable techniques to solve problems and achieve goals, appropriate to the context in an uncertain, ever-varying world" (Manning 2020).Machine learning implies models and algorithms that learn from data rather than following explicit rules. Deep learning (DL) is a form of ML that uses large and multilayered artificial neural networks. Neural networks are computational algorithms influenced by biological networks for information processing. They consist of several layers of "neurons" that communicate. By training the neurons how to communicate, interactions develop that solve a particular problem. DL is currently the most successful and general ML approach (Michie et al. 1994, Manning 2020.Recent technological breakthroughs in computational hardware (like specialized graphics processors [GPUs] and cloud Key concepts presented in this review • Introduction to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) and how these relate to traditional clinical research statistics • Common pitfalls in AI research • How to measure and interpret AI and ML ...

Aims The number of convolutional neural networks (CNN) available for fracture detection and classification is rapidly increasing. External validation of a CNN on a temporally separate (separated by time) or geographically separate (separated by location) dataset is crucial to assess generalizability of the CNN before application to clinical practice in other institutions. We aimed to answer the following questions: are current CNNs for fracture recognition externally valid?; which methods are applied for external validation (EV)?; and, what are reported performances of the EV sets compared to the internal validation (IV) sets of these CNNs? Methods The PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched from January 2010 to October 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The type of EV, characteristics of the external dataset, and diagnostic performance characteristics on the IV and EV datasets were collected and compared. Quality assessment was conducted using a seven-item checklist based on a modified Methodologic Index for NOn-Randomized Studies instrument (MINORS). Results Out of 1,349 studies, 36 reported development of a CNN for fracture detection and/or classification. Of these, only four (11%) reported a form of EV. One study used temporal EV, one conducted both temporal and geographical EV, and two used geographical EV. When comparing the CNN’s performance on the IV set versus the EV set, the following were found: AUCs of 0.967 (IV) versus 0.975 (EV), 0.976 (IV) versus 0.985 to 0.992 (EV), 0.93 to 0.96 (IV) versus 0.80 to 0.89 (EV), and F1-scores of 0.856 to 0.863 (IV) versus 0.757 to 0.840 (EV). Conclusion The number of externally validated CNNs in orthopaedic trauma for fracture recognition is still scarce. This greatly limits the potential for transfer of these CNNs from the developing institute to another hospital to achieve similar diagnostic performance. We recommend the use of geographical EV and statements such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–Artificial Intelligence (CONSORT-AI), the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–Artificial Intelligence (SPIRIT-AI) and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis–Machine Learning (TRIPOD-ML) to critically appraise performance of CNNs and improve methodological rigor, quality of future models, and facilitate eventual implementation in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):879–885.