ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2023
Detecting whether L1 or other lumbar levels would be excluded from DXA bone mineral density analysis during opportunistic CT screening for osteoporosis using machine learning.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning-based risk predictive model for postoperative refractures in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and critical appraisal.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning-assisted osteoporosis detection using radiographic canal bone ratio (CBR-7) and demographic features.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 · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Rheumatology: From Algorithms to Clinical Impact in Osteoporosis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Osteoporosis Diagnosis, Risk Prediction and Therapy: Current Advances, Clinical Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
- Age-related bone loss in mouse lumbar vertebrae is affected by region, sex, and level: Implications for spinal loading and analysis methods.Bone reports · 2025Article
- CT-based radiomics predicts adjacent vertebral fracture after percutaneous vertebral augmentation.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 · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOne or more vertebrae are sometimes excluded from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) analysis if the bone mineral density (BMD) T-score estimates are not consistent with the other lumbar vertebrae BMD T-score estimates. The goal of this study was to build a machine learning framework to identify which vertebrae would be excluded from DXA analysis based on the computed tomography (CT) attenuation of the vertebrae.
methodsRetrospective review of 995 patients (69.0% female) aged 50 years or greater with CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis and DXA within 1 year of each other. Volumetric semi-automated segmentation of each vertebral body was performed using 3D-Slicer to obtain the CT attenuation of each vertebra. Radiomic features based on the CT attenuation of the lumbar vertebrae were created. The data were randomly split into training/validation (90%) and test datasets (10%). We used two multivariate machine learning models: a support vector machine (SVM) and a neural net (NN) to predict which vertebra(e) were excluded from DXA analysis.
resultsL1, L2, L3, and L4 were excluded from DXA in 8.7% (87/995), 9.9% (99/995), 32.3% (321/995), and 42.6% (424/995) patients, respectively. The SVM had a higher area under the curve (AUC = 0.803) than the NN (AUC = 0.589) for predicting whether L1 would be excluded from DXA analysis (P = 0.015) in the test dataset. The SVM was better than the NN for predicting whether L2 (AUC = 0.757 compared to AUC = 0.478), L3 (AUC = 0.699 compared to AUC = 0.555), or L4 (AUC = 0.751 compared to AUC = 0.639) were excluded from DXA analysis.
conclusionsMachine learning algorithms could be used to identify which lumbar vertebrae would be excluded from DXA analysis and should not be used for opportunistic CT screening analysis. The SVM was better than the NN for identifying which lumbar vertebra should not be used for opportunistic CT screening analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.