Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28083827›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017

Detection and Labeling of Vertebrae in MR Images Using Deep Learning with Clinical Annotations as Training Data.

Daniel Forsberg, Erik Sjöblom, Jeffrey L Sunshine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Artificial Intelligence and Computer Vision in Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. A two-stage deep learning system for cervical spine fracture diagnosis: integrating 3D segmentation and 2.5D classification on CT images.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Research and application progress in deep learning in otology.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  9. Artificial Intelligence in Spinal Imaging: Current Status and Future Directions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Machine learning in orthopaedic surgery.World journal of orthopedics · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniel ForsbergSectra, Teknikringen 20, 583 30, Linköping, SE, Sweden. daniel.forsberg@sectra.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0908-9470
Erik SjöblomSectra, Teknikringen 20, 583 30, Linköping, SE, Sweden.
Jeffrey L SunshineDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of using clinically provided spine label annotations stored in a single institution image archive as training data for deep learning-based vertebral detection and labeling pipelines. Lumbar and cervical magnetic resonance imaging cases with annotated spine labels were identified and exported from an image archive. Two separate pipelines were configured and trained for lumbar and cervical cases respectively, using the same setup with convolutional neural networks for detection and parts-based graphical models to label the vertebrae. The detection sensitivity, precision and accuracy rates ranged between 99.1-99.8, 99.6-100, and 98.8-99.8% respectively, the average localization error ranges were 1.18-1.24 and 2.38-2.60 mm for cervical and lumbar cases respectively, and with a labeling accuracy of 96.0-97.0%. Failed labeling results typically involved failed S1 detections or missed vertebrae that were not fully visible on the image. These results show that clinically annotated image data from one image archive is sufficient to train a deep learning-based pipeline for accurate detection and labeling of MR images depicting the spine. Further, these results support using deep learning to assist radiologists in their work by providing highly accurate labels that only require rapid confirmation.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerRadiology Information SystemsCervical VertebraeHumansLumbar VertebraeSensitivity and SpecificitySpineThoracic VertebraeArchiveArtificial neural networks (ANNs)Machine learningMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID28083827
PMCPMC5537089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.