Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36315069›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2023

Deep Learning for Multi-Tissue Segmentation and Fully Automatic Personalized Biomechanical Models from BACPAC Clinical Lumbar Spine MRI.

Madeline Hess, Brett Allaire, Kenneth T Gao, Radhika Tibrewala, Gaurav Inamdar, Upasana Bharadwaj, Cynthia Chin, Valentina Pedoia, Mary Bouxsein, Dennis Anderson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal applications: a primer for radiologists.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

11 authors.

Madeline HessDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Center for Intelligent Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.ORCID 0000-0002-3313-932X
Brett AllaireCenter for Advanced Orthopedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kenneth T GaoDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Center for Intelligent Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Radhika TibrewalaDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Center for Intelligent Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Gaurav InamdarDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Center for Intelligent Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Upasana BharadwajDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Center for Intelligent Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Cynthia ChinDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Center for Intelligent Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Valentina PedoiaDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Center for Intelligent Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Mary BouxseinCenter for Advanced Orthopedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Dennis AndersonCenter for Advanced Orthopedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sharmila MajumdarDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Center for Intelligent Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.

Funding

Technology Research Site for Advanced, Faster Quantitative Imaging for BACPACUH3AR076724 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MAJUMDAR, SHARMILA · 2020 to 2023
$4.8M
Influence of Spinal Loading on Vertebral FractureR01AR073019 · NIAMS · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI BOUXSEIN, MARY L, SNYDER, BRIAN D · 2018 to 2022
$2.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR073019NIAMS NIH HHS UH3 AR076724
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designIn vivo retrospective study of fully automatic quantitative imaging feature extraction from clinically acquired lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

objectiveTo demonstrate the feasibility of substituting automatic for human-demarcated segmentation of major anatomic structures in clinical lumbar spine MRI to generate quantitative image-based features and biomechanical models.

settingPrevious studies have demonstrated the viability of automatic segmentation applied to medical images; however, the feasibility of these networks to segment clinically acquired images has not yet been demonstrated, as they largely rely on specialized sequences or strict quality of imaging data to achieve good performance.

methodsConvolutional neural networks were trained to demarcate vertebral bodies, intervertebral disc, and paraspinous muscles from sagittal and axial T1-weighted MRIs. Intervertebral disc height, muscle cross-sectional area, and subject-specific musculoskeletal models of tissue loading in the lumbar spine were then computed from these segmentations and compared against those computed from human-demarcated masks.

resultsSegmentation masks, as well as the morphological metrics and biomechanical models computed from those masks, were highly similar between human- and computer-generated methods. Segmentations were similar, with Dice similarity coefficients of 0.77 or greater across networks, and morphological metrics and biomechanical models were similar, with Pearson R correlation coefficients of 0.69 or greater when significant.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the feasibility of substituting computer-generated for human-generated segmentations of major anatomic structures in lumbar spine MRI to compute quantitative image-based morphological metrics and subject-specific musculoskeletal models of tissue loading quickly, efficiently, and at scale without interrupting routine clinical care.

Indexed as

Deep LearningHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLumbar VertebraeMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerRetrospective StudiesBACPACBiomechanicsChronic Low Back PainDeep LearningLumbar SpineMagnetic Resonance ImagingMusculoskeletalQuantitative Imaging

Identifiers

PMID36315069
PMCPMC10403305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.