Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Artificial intelligence software to help detect fractures on X-rays in urgent care: An Early Value Assessment›Evidence submitted by companies

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Artificial intelligence software to help detect fractures on X-rays in urgent care: An Early Value Assessment · Evidence submitted by companies

Evidence submitted by companies

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 1 min read

Three companies (Gleamer, Milvue and Radiobotics) submitted a request for information (RFI) response to inform this assessment, no RFI was received from AZmed or Qure.ai. As part of the RFI responses, each company provided details about evaluations of their technologies that may be relevant for consideration within this assessment. These studies were screened using the same methods described in the protocol2 for the assessment, meaning that they were included where they met the inclusion criteria for the evidence reviews. This included two unpublished manuscripts, currently in preparation, submitted by Radiobotics. Studies that were excluded during screening are listed in Appendix 3 alongside the reasons for exclusion.

A number of studies described by companies in their RFI responses were identified by the EAG as plausibly relevant but there was insufficient information to determine their eligibility for the assessment. This included studies where:

  • It was unclear whether the technology was evaluated as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or whether the technology was used in conjunction with clinician judgement.
  • An incomplete citation was provided by the company, and it was not possible to identify the publication source.
  • Results were not provided for any of the outcomes in the NICE scope,1 or data were presented in an unusable format.

In all such cases, the EAG submitted a request for clarification from the companies who submitted RFIs (Gleamer, Milvue, and Radiobotics).

Similar uncertainties were identified for several studies identified by the EAG in its evidence review, in addition to uncertainties regarding the name of the technology evaluated. Requests for clarification were submitted to companies where they were listed as a study sponsor and/or where staff from the company were listed as a study sponsor (Gleamer, Milvue, AZmed, and Radiobotics).

Where no clarification response was received by the companies, any studies that did not clearly meet the review eligibility criteria, as outlined above, were excluded.

← Economic evidence searches and selectionEconomic evaluation →

Attribution. Caroline Farmer; Helen Coelho; Madhusubramanian Muthukumar; Sophie Robinson; Robert Meertens; Obioha C Ukoumunne et al. (2026). Artificial intelligence software to help detect fractures on X-rays in urgent care: An Early Value Assessment. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2026 Farmer et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK622219. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • Evidence submitted by companies

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support