Completed NA INTERVENTIONAL NCT06754137

AI-assisted fracture detection on emergency X-rays — a randomized trial that made time in the department, not accuracy, the primary outcome (NCT06754137)

Salzburger Landeskliniken Updated 2026-08-17

A multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial in patients with a suspected fracture after trauma, assigning physicians to interpret X-rays with or without AI support. The primary outcome is not diagnostic accuracy but the time from triage to completion of emergency department treatment. Planned enrollment 1,667; started October 2025 and completed April 2026.

Trial overview (primary data)

  • StatusCompleted
  • ConditionsBone Fractures
  • InterventionsDIAGNOSTIC_TEST: BoneView AI-Assisted Radiograph Interpretation
  • SponsorSalzburger Landeskliniken
  • Target enrollment1,667 participants
  • Period2025-10-01 〜 2026-04-30

Key points

  • A multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial in patients aged 2 years or older with a suspected fracture after trauma, assigned to AI-assisted or unassisted interpretation.
  • The primary outcome is the time from triage to completion of emergency department treatment, not diagnostic accuracy.
  • Secondary outcomes cover physician diagnostic confidence, use of additional imaging, missed fractures, and diagnostic accuracy.
  • The record states that at the participating hospitals the formal radiology report generally does not arrive before the patient leaves the emergency department.
  • Planned enrollment 1,667; started October 2025 and completed April 2026. All final diagnoses and treatment decisions remained with the treating physician.
  • The primary endpoint is time from triage to completion of emergency care rather than diagnostic accuracy, which moves to secondary.

1An emergency X-ray gets read twice

When an X-ray is taken in the emergency department, the frontline physician reads it on the spot, and the formal report from a radiologist arrives afterwards. What the record of this trial states plainly is the operational reality at the participating hospitals: that report generally does not arrive before the patient has left.

In other words, at the moment treatment is decided, the treating physician is relying on a single reading. Placing AI at that point is less a contest over whether it beats a specialist than a question of whether it can fill the window in which specialist judgment is unavailable.

2What it means to make time the primary outcome

Most medical-AI trials put diagnostic accuracy at the centre. This one chose the time from triage to completion of emergency department treatment, and moved accuracy to the secondary outcomes. In an emergency department, reading correctly and keeping patients moving are different kinds of value, and the second one feeds directly into how many people the hospital can take.

Measuring diagnostic confidence, use of additional imaging, and missed fractures alongside it is an attempt to see from several angles how AI changes what physicians do. The result figures are not part of this registry record.

3One of the few trials that reached an answer

Of the 750 medical-AI clinical trials this site holds as of 2026-08-28, 164 are recorded as completed — 22 percent of the total. Another 247 are recruiting and 215 have not begun recruiting, so 62 percent are still on their way to a result. This trial began in October 2025 and completed in April 2026, placing it in the minority that finished within seven months.

Clinical evaluation of medical AI has not accumulated results at anything like the rate at which trials are registered. Against that backdrop, a pragmatic randomized trial that reached completion carries weight as a reference point.

4What to place as the primary endpoint

Most medical AI trials place diagnostic accuracy as the primary endpoint. This one chose something else.

Placing accuracy as the primary endpointPlacing time as the primary endpoint (this trial)
Asks whether it reads correctlyAsks whether patients move through without backing up
Compares AI against physician readingLooks at how AI changes what physicians do
The result appears as diagnostic qualityThe result bears directly on hospital capacity
Where most medical AI trials sitAccuracy is moved to a secondary endpoint

When an X-ray is taken in the emergency department, the front-line physician reads it there and the formal radiology report arrives later. The record states explicitly that at the participating hospitals that report ordinarily does not arrive before the patient leaves.

Measuring diagnostic confidence, use of additional imaging and missed fractures alongside is a design for seeing from several angles how AI changes physician behaviour.

Why it matters

Judging imaging AI on the correctness of a reading alone misses what emergency practice actually asks for: clearing congestion, holding down extra imaging, and steadying confidence. Making time the primary outcome is one example of measuring the effect of an AI deployment in the metrics by which a hospital is run.

FAQ

Does the AI diagnose in place of the physician?
No. The record states that all final diagnoses and treatment decisions remained with the treating physician. The AI adds an assessment while the reading is being done.
Why choose time rather than accuracy as the primary outcome?
The record names the primary outcome as the time from triage to completion of emergency department treatment. It does not state the reason, but it does record that the formal radiology report generally does not arrive before the patient leaves.
Are the results available?
The trial is recorded as completed, but the result figures are not part of this registry record.

Sources (primary)

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov (U.S. NIH/NLM, public domain). This site does not provide medical advice. Verify the latest and exact details with the official source. This site is not endorsed or certified by the NIH/NLM.

#Clinical trials#AI#Healthcare#Emergency medicine#Radiology
Disclaimer: This site independently summarizes and classifies information based on official data sources. Always verify the latest and accurate information with the official sources. Content on finance, health, legal, and security is information, not advice. This site is not an official website of the U.S. government.