ArticleBMC medical imaging2023
Deep learning model for measuring the sagittal Cobb angle on cervical spine computed tomography.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated diagnostic of cervical spondylosis on multimodal medical images with a multi-task deep learning model.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Development of a deep learning model for measuring sagittal parameters on cervical spine X-ray.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
- Automated 3D Cobb Angle Measurement Using U-Net in CT Images of Preoperative Scoliosis Patients.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal imaging: realistic clinical applications in the next decade.Skeletal radiology · 2024Review
- A high-quality dataset featuring classified and annotated cervical spine X-ray atlas.Scientific data · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposesTo develop a deep learning (DL) model to measure the sagittal Cobb angle of the cervical spine on computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo VB-Net-based DL models for cervical vertebra segmentation and key-point detection were developed. Four-points and line-fitting methods were used to calculate the sagittal Cobb angle automatically. The average value of the sagittal Cobb angle was manually measured by two doctors as the reference standard. The percentage of correct key points (PCK), matched samples t test, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson correlation coefficient, mean absolute error (MAE), and Bland‒Altman plots were used to evaluate the performance of the DL model and the robustness and generalization of the model on the external test set.
resultsA total of 991 patients were included in the internal data set, and 112 patients were included in the external data set. The PCK of the DL model ranged from 78 to 100% in the test set. The four-points method, line-fitting method, and reference standard measured sagittal Cobb angles were - 1.10 ± 18.29°, 0.30 ± 13.36°, and 0.50 ± 12.83° in the internal test set and 4.55 ± 20.01°, 3.66 ± 18.55°, and 1.83 ± 12.02° in the external test set, respectively. The sagittal Cobb angle calculated by the four-points method and the line-fitting method maintained high consistency with the reference standard (internal test set: ICC = 0.75 and 0.97; r = 0.64 and 0.94; MAE = 5.42° and 3.23°, respectively; external test set: ICC = 0.74 and 0.80, r = 0.66 and 0.974, MAE = 5.25° and 4.68°, respectively).
conclusionsThe DL model can accurately measure the sagittal Cobb angle of the cervical spine on CT. The line-fitting method shows a higher consistency with the doctors and a minor average absolute error.
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.