ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024
Automated Segmentation and Diagnostic Measurement for the Evaluation of Cervical Spine Injuries Using X-Rays.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Structure-aware multi-task learning with domain generalization for robust vertebrae analysis in spinal CT.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate assessment of cervical spine X-ray images through diagnostic metrics plays a crucial role in determining appropriate treatment strategies for cervical injuries and evaluating surgical outcomes. Such assessment can be facilitated through the use of automatic methods such as machine learning and computer vision algorithms. A total of 852 cervical X-rays obtained from Gachon Medical Center were used for multiclass segmentation of the craniofacial bones (hard palate, basion, opisthion) and cervical spine (C1-C7), incorporating architectures such as EfficientNetB4, DenseNet201, and InceptionResNetV2. Diagnostic metrics automatically measured using computer vision algorithms were compared with manually measured metrics through Pearson's correlation coefficient and paired t-tests. The three models demonstrated high average dice coefficient values for the cervical spine (C1, 0.93; C2, 0.96; C3, 0.96; C4, 0.96; C5, 0.96; C6, 0.96; C7, 0.95) and lower values for the craniofacial bones (hard palate, 0.69; basion, 0.81; opisthion, 0.71). Comparison of manually measured metrics and automatically measured metrics showed high Pearson's correlation coefficients in McGregor's line (r = 0.89), space available cord (r = 0.94), cervical sagittal vertical axis (r = 0.99), cervical lordosis (r = 0.88), lower correlations in basion-dens interval (r = 0.65), basion-axial interval (r = 0.72), and Powers ratio (r = 0.62). No metric showed adjusted significant differences at P < 0.05 between manual and automatic metric measuring methods. These findings demonstrate the potential of multiclass segmentation in automating the measurement of diagnostic metrics for cervical spine injuries and showcase the clinical potential for diagnosing cervical spine injuries and evaluating cervical surgical outcomes.
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.