Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are present in 10%-15% of thoracic trauma cases but are often missed on chest radiographs, delaying diagnosis and treatment. Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve detection and triage in emergency settings. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate diagnostic accuracy, processing speed, and technical feasibility of an artificial intelligence-assisted rib fracture detection system using prospectively collected data within a real-world, high-volume emergency department workflow. METHODS: We conducted an observational feasibility study with prospective data collection of a faster region-based convolutional neural network-based AI model deployed in the emergency department to analyze 23,251 real-world chest radiographs (22,946 anteroposterior; 305 oblique) from April 1 to July 2, 2023. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of MacKay Memorial Hospital (IRB No. 20MMHIS483e). AI operated passively, without influencing clinical decision-making. The reference standard was the final report issued by board-certified radiologists. A subset of discordant cases underwent post hoc computed tomography review for exploratory analysis. RESULTS: AI achieved 74.5% sensitivity (95% CI 0.708-0.780), 93.3% specificity (95% CI 0.930-0.937), 24.2% positive predictive value, and 99.2% negative predictive value. Median inference time was 10.6 seconds versus 3.3 hours for radiologist reports (paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test W=112 987.5, P<.001). The analysis revealed peak imaging demand between 08:00 and 16:00 and Thursday-Saturday evenings. A 14-day graphics processing unit outage underscored the importance of infrastructure resilience. CONCLUSIONS: The AI system demonstrated strong technical feasibility for real-time rib fracture detection in a high-volume emergency department setting, with rapid inference and stable performance during prospective deployment. Although the system showed high negative predictive value, the observed false-positive and false-negative rates indicate that it should be considered a supportive screening tool rather than a stand-alone diagnostic solution or a replacement for clinical judgment. These findings support further clinician-in-the-loop studies to evaluate clinical feasibility, workflow integration, and impact on diagnostic decision-making. However, interpretation is limited by reliance on radiology reports as the reference standard and the system's passive, non-interventional deployment.