SynthesisInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2016
On computerized methods for spine analysis in MRI: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Automated Segmentation of Tissues Using CT and MRI: A Systematic Review.Academic radiology · 2019Pooled it
- The Application of Deep Learning to Accurately Identify the Dimensions of Spinal Canal and Intervertebral Foramen as Evaluated by the IoU Index.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Lumbar Intervertebral Disc and Discovertebral Segment, Part 1: An Imaging Review of Normal Anatomy.Cureus · 2022Article
- Automated assessment of paraspinal muscle fat composition based on the segmentation of chemical shift encoding-based water/fat-separated images.European radiology experimental · 2018Article
- Fully automatic cross-modality localization and labeling of vertebral bodies and intervertebral discs in 3D spinal images.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the last decades, the increasing medical interest in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine gave rise to a growing number of publications on computerized methods for spine analysis, covering goals such as localization and segmentation of vertebrae and intervertebral discs as well as the extraction and segmentation of the spinal canal and cord. We provide a critical systematic review to work in the field, putting focus on approaches that can be applied to different imaging sequences and settings.
methodsWork is analysed on two levels. First, methods are reviewed in detail so that the reader understands justifications and constraints of particular work. Second, work is classified according to relevant attributes and tabulated to give an impression on recent trends. We discuss the general methodical and evaluational aspects of the work as well as challenges specific to MRI such as the lack of intensity standardization and partial volume effects.
resultsMethods can be condensed to a small number of optimization frameworks, e.g., graphical models, cost-minimal paths and deformable models. Works sharing the same framework mainly differentiate by the types of information, i.e., pose, geometry and appearance, that are used and by the implementation thereof. MRI-specific challenges are rarely addressed explicitly, calling into question the applicability of most methods to changing imaging sequences or settings. Most often, little attention is paid to evaluation, meaning that results lack comparability and reproducibility although publicly available data sets exist.
conclusionThe diversity of MRI sequences and settings still poses challenges to computerized spine analysis. Further research is necessary to implement methods that are actually applicable in practice, e.g., in clinical routine or for study purposes. Certainly, manual guidance will be necessary at some point, for instance to deal with changing subject positions. Therefore, future work should put attention to the appropriate integration of manual interaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26861655What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.