ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2024
Automatic Detection and Classification of Modic Changes in MRI Images Using Deep Learning: Intelligent Assisted Diagnosis System.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Spine Neuroimaging: Diagnostic and Prognostic Utility of Novel Biomarkers in Lower Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- MRI radiomics reveals pain-related biomarkers for modic changes.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
- Modic changes and their role in vertebrogenic back pain: a literature review.Skeletal radiology · 2026Review
- Advent of Artificial Intelligence in Spine Research: An Updated Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis of Research Relating to Spinal Modic Changes Reported Over the Period 2004-2024.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- AI for Lesion Detection in Musculoskeletal Radiology.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Publicly Available Datasets for Artificial Intelligence in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating CNN Architectures for the Automated Detection and Grading of Modic Changes in MRI: A Comparative Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Spine MRI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveModic changes (MCs) are the most prevalent classification system for describing intravertebral MRI signal intensity changes. However, interpreting these intricate MRI images is a complex and time-consuming process. This study investigates the performance of single shot multibox detector (SSD) and ResNet18 network-based automatic detection and classification of MCs. Additionally, it compares the inter-observer agreement and observer-classifier agreement in MCs diagnosis to validate the feasibility of deep learning network-assisted detection of classified MCs.
methodA retrospective analysis of 140 patients with MCs who underwent MRI diagnosis and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria in Tianjin Hospital from June 2020 to June 2021 was used as the internal dataset. This group consisted of 55 males and 85 females, aged 25 to 89 years, with a mean age of (59.0 ± 13.7) years. An external test dataset of 28 patients, who met the same criteria and were assessed using different MRI equipment at Tianjin Hospital, was also gathered, including 11 males and 17 females, aged 31 to 84 years, with a mean age of 62.7 ± 10.9 years. After Physician 1 (with 15 years of experience) annotated all MRI images, the internal dataset was imported into the deep learning model for training. The model comprises an SSD network for lesion localization and a ResNet18 network for lesion classification. Performance metrics, including accuracy, recall, precision, F1 score, confusion matrix, and inter-observer agreement parameter Kappa value, were used to evaluate the model's performance on the internal and external datasets. Physician 2 (with 1 year of experience) re-labeled the internal and external test datasets to compare the inter-observer agreement and observer-classifier agreement.
resultsIn the internal dataset, when models were utilized for the detection and classification of MCs, the accuracy, recall, precision and F1 score reached 86.25%, 87.77%, 84.92% and 85.60%, respectively. The Kappa value of the inter-observer agreement was 0.768 (95% CI: 0.656, 0.847),while observer-classifier agreement was 0.717 (95% CI: 0.589, 0.809).In the external test dataset, the model's the accuracy, recall, precision and F1 scores for diagnosing MCs reached 75%, 77.08%, 77.80% and 74.97%, respectively. The inter-observer agreement was 0.681 (95% CI: 0.512, 0.677), and observer-classifier agreement was 0.519 (95% CI: 0.290, 0.690).
conclusionThe model demonstrated strong performance in detecting and classifying MCs, achieving high agreement with physicians in MCs diagnosis. These results suggest that deep learning models have the potential to facilitate the application of intelligent assisted diagnosis techniques in the field of spine research.
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.