Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33298549›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2020

Feasibility of Deep Learning Algorithms for Reporting in Routine Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Kai-Uwe LewandrowskI, Narendran Muraleedharan, Steven Allen Eddy, Vikram Sobti, Brian D Reece, Jorge Felipe Ramírez León, Sandeep Shah

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Are current machine learning applications comparable to radiologist classification of degenerate and herniated discs and Modic change? A systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Artificial Intelligence and Computer Aided Diagnosis in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kai-Uwe LewandrowskIStaff Orthopaedic Spine Surgeon Center for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona and Surgical Institute of Tucson, Tucson, Arizona.
Narendran MuraleedharanAptus Engineering, Inc, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Multus Medical, LLC, Phoenix, Arizona.
Steven Allen EddyMultus Medical, LLC, Phoenix, Arizona.
Vikram SobtiInnovative Radiology, PC, River Forest, Illinois.
Brian D ReeceThe Spine and Orthopedic Academic Research Institute, Lewisville, Texas.
Jorge Felipe Ramírez LeónFundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá, Colombia, Research Team, Centro de Columna. Bogotá, Colombia, Centro de Cirugía de Mínima Invasión, CECIMIN-Clínica Reina Sofía, Bogotá, Colombia.
Sandeep ShahMultus Medical, LLC, Phoenix, Arizona.
Desert Institute For Spine Care · USFundación Universitaria Sanitas · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence is gaining traction in automated medical imaging analysis. Development of more accurate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predictors of successful clinical outcomes is necessary to better define indications for surgery, improve clinical outcomes with targeted minimally invasive and endoscopic procedures, and realize cost savings by avoiding more invasive spine care.

objectiveTo demonstrate the ability for deep learning neural network models to identify features in MRI DICOM datasets that represent varying intensities or severities of common spinal pathologies and injuries and to demonstrate the feasibility of generating automated verbal MRI reports comparable to those produced by reading radiologists.

methodsA 3-dimensional (3D) anatomical model of the lumbar spine was fitted to each of the patient's MRIs by a team of technicians. MRI T1, T2, sagittal, axial, and transverse reconstruction image series were used to train segmentation models by the intersection of the 3D model through these image sequences. Class definitions were extracted from the radiologist report for the central canal: (0) no disc bulge/protrusion/canal stenosis, (1) disc bulge without canal stenosis, (2) disc bulge resulting in canal stenosis, and (3) disc herniation/protrusion/extrusion resulting in canal stenosis. Both the left and right neural foramina were assessed with either (0) neural foraminal stenosis absent, or (1) neural foramina stenosis present. Reporting criteria for the pathologies at each disc level and, when available, the grading of severity were extracted, and a natural language processing model was used to generate a verbal and written report. These data were then used to train a set of very deep convolutional neural network models, optimizing for minimal binary cross-entropy for each classification.

resultsThe initial prediction validation of the implemented deep learning algorithm was done on 20% of the dataset, which was not used for artificial intelligence training. Of the 17,800 total disc locations for which MRI images and radiology reports were available, 14,720 were used to train the model, and 3560 were used to validate against. The convergence of validation accuracy achieved with the deep learning algorithm for the foraminal stenosis detector was 81% (sensitivity = 72.4.4%, specificity = 83.1%) after 25 complete iterations through the entire training dataset (epoch). The accuracy was 86.2% (sensitivity = 91.1%, specificity = 82.5%) for the central stenosis detector and 85.2% (sensitivity = 81.8%, specificity = 87.4%) for the disc herniation detector.

conclusionsDeep learning algorithms may be used for routine reporting in spine MRI. There was a minimal disparity among accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, indicating that the data were not overfitted to the training set. We concluded that variability in the training data tends to reduce overfitting and overtraining as the deep neural network models learn to focus on the common pathologies. Future studies should demonstrate the accuracy of deep neural network models and the predictive value of favorable clinical outcomes with intervention and surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Feasibility, clinical teaching, and evaluation study.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep neural network learningfeasibility analysismagnetic resonance imagingspinal pathologies

Identifiers

PMID33298549
PMCPMC7735442
OpenAlexW3112431498

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.