ArticleJOR spine2024
Automatic grading of intervertebral disc degeneration in lumbar dog spines.
Article in JOR spine, 2024. 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.
- Review of applications of deep learning in veterinary diagnostics and animal health.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Veterinary Neurology: Comparative Insights From Human Medicine and Cross-Species Technology Transfer.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Review
- Integrating cells, scaffolds, and molecular regulation: a mechanobiological and translational review of bioengineering therapies for intervertebral disc degeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Automated diagnosis and grading of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration based on a modified YOLO framework.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intervertebral disc degeneration is frequent in dogs and can be associated with symptoms and functional impairments. The degree of disc degeneration can be assessed on T2-weighted MRI scans using the Pfirrmann classification scheme, which was developed for the human spine. However, it could also be used to quantify the effectiveness of disc regeneration therapies. We developed and tested a deep learning tool able to automatically score the degree of disc degeneration in dog spines, starting from an existing model designed to process images of human patients. Methods: MRI midsagittal scans of 5991 lumbar discs of dog patients were collected and manually evaluated with the Pfirrmann scheme and a modified scheme with transitional grades. A deep learning model was trained to classify the disc images based on the two schemes and tested by comparing its performance with the model processing human images. Results: The determination of the Pfirrmann grade showed sensitivities higher than 83% for all degeneration grades, except for grade 5, which is rare in dog spines, and high specificities. In comparison, the correspondent human model had slightly higher sensitivities, on average 90% versus 85% for the canine model. The modified scheme with the fractional grades did not show significant advantages with respect to the original Pfirrmann grades. Conclusions: The novel tool was able to accurately and reliably score the severity of disc degeneration in dogs, although with a performance inferior than that of the human model. The tool has potential in the clinical management of disc degeneration in canine patients as well as in longitudinal studies evaluating regenerative therapies in dogs used as animal models of human disorders.
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.