Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35084588›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

Artificial intelligence and spine imaging: limitations, regulatory issues and future direction.

Alexander L Hornung, Christopher M Hornung, G Michael Mallow, J Nicolas Barajas, Alejandro A Espinoza Orías, Fabio Galbusera, Hans-Joachim Wilke, Matthew Colman, Frank M Phillips, Howard S An and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in 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, 2022. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Fully automated pedicle screw manufacturer identification in plain radiograph with deep learning methods.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 · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Artificial intelligence-aided lytic spinal bone metastasis classification on CT scans.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

11 authors.

Alexander L HornungDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Christopher M HornungUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
G Michael MallowDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
J Nicolas BarajasDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Alejandro A Espinoza OríasDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Fabio GalbuseraSpine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland.
Hans-Joachim WilkeInstitute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Center Ulm, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Matthew ColmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Frank M PhillipsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Howard S AnDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Dino SamartzisDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. Dino_Samartzis@rush.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7473-1311

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs big data and artificial intelligence (AI) in spine care, and medicine as a whole, continue to be at the forefront of research, careful consideration to the quality and techniques utilized is necessary. Predictive modeling, data science, and deep analytics have taken center stage. Within that space, AI and machine learning (ML) approaches toward the use of spine imaging have gathered considerable attention in the past decade. Although several benefits of such applications exist, limitations are also present and need to be considered. PURPOSE: The following narrative review presents the current status of AI, in particular, ML, with special regard to imaging studies, in the field of spinal research.

methodsA multi-database assessment of the literature was conducted up to September 1, 2021, that addressed AI as it related to imaging of the spine. Articles written in English were selected and critically assessed.

resultsOverall, the review discussed the limitations, data quality and applications of ML models in the context of spine imaging. In particular, we addressed the data quality and ML algorithms in spine imaging research by describing preliminary results from a widely accessible imaging algorithm that is currently available for spine specialists to reference for information on severity of spine disease and degeneration which ultimately may alter clinical decision-making. In addition, awareness of the current, under-recognized regulation surrounding the execution of ML for spine imaging was raised.

conclusionsRecommendations were provided for conducting high-quality, standardized AI applications for spine imaging.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceSpinal DiseasesAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningArtificial intelligenceDisk degenerationImagingLimitationsMachine learningRegulationSpineStandardization

Identifiers

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.