ArticleBrain & spine2024
Comparing image normalization techniques in an end-to-end model for automated modic changes classification from MRI images.
Article in Brain & spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Modic Changes (MCs) are MRI alterations in spine vertebrae's signal intensity. This study introduces an end-to-end model to automatically detect and classify MCs in lumbar MRIs. The model's two-step process involves locating intervertebral regions and then categorizing MC types (MC0, MC1, MC2) using paired T1-and T2-weighted images. This approach offers a promising solution for efficient and standardized MC assessment. Research question: The aim is to investigate how different MRI normalization techniques affect MCs classification and how the model can be used in a clinical setting. Material and methods: A combination of Faster R-CNN and a 3D Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is employed. The model first identifies intervertebral regions and then classifies MC types (MC0, MC1, MC2) using paired T1-and T2-weighted lumbar MRIs. Two datasets are used for model development and evaluation. Results: The detection model achieves high accuracy in identifying intervertebral areas, with Intersection over Union (IoU) values above 0.7, indicating strong localization alignment. Confidence scores above 0.9 demonstrate the model's accurate levels identification. In the classification task, standardization proves the best performances for MC type assessment, achieving mean sensitivities of 0.83 for MC0, 0.85 for MC1, and 0.78 for MC2, along with balanced accuracy of 0.80 and F1 score of 0.88. Discussion and conclusion: The study's end-to-end model shows promise in automating MC assessment, contributing to standardized diagnostics and treatment planning. Limitations include dataset size, class imbalance, and lack of external validation. Future research should focus on external validation, refining model generalization, and improving clinical applicability.
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.