Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39370554›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging

A simplified approach to define cervical vertebral levels in spinal cord MRI studies.

Nico Papinutto, Ilaria Perretti, Jacob Mallott, Shuiting Cheng, Tiffany Cooper, Refujia Gomez, William A Stern, Anna Pichiecchio, Eduardo Caverzasi, Roland G Henry

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A simplified approach to define cervical vertebral levels in spinal cord MRI studies.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nico PapinuttoWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2184-4782
Ilaria PerrettiWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-7288-9253
Jacob MallottWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Shuiting ChengWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Tiffany CooperWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Refujia GomezWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
William A SternWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Anna PichiecchioDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Eduardo CaverzasiDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Roland G HenryWeill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001872 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI COLLARD, HAROLD R, JACOBY, VANESSA · 2016 to 2025
$112.1M
The Role of B cells in the Origin and Progression of Multiple SclerosisR35NS111644 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI STEPHEN L HAUSER · 2019 to 2026
$9.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001872NINDS NIH HHS R35 NS111644Research Evaluation & Allocation Committee
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeSpinal cord (SC) cross-sectional areas (CSAs) assessed with MRI have proven to be extremely valuable imaging markers in several diseases. Among the challenges is the delineation of vertebral levels to determine level-dependent changes in cord atrophy. With this study, we aimed to (1) test the hypothesis that there is proportionality in the position of the first six intervertebral discs and the length of the upper portion of the SC and (2) show that a proportionality approach can simplify the CSA assessment across vertebrae offering good reliability.

methodsForty-six volunteers underwent standard T2-weighted and T1-weighted cervical SC MRI acquisitions. The distance between the obex and the intervertebral discs (from C2-C3 to T1-T2) was measured on the T2-weighted acquisitions of the entire cohort. In a test-retest experiment on 12 subjects, the % disc position values were used to define vertebral levels, and a comparison was performed with manual vertebrae assignment in terms of mean CSA and its coefficient of variation.

resultsThe mean upper cord length for the cohort was 144.0 ± 13.1 mm. The discs' level % position in the upper cord was found to be fairly consistent, with standard deviations of 0.8%-1.7%. The mean vertebral CSA obtained with the proportionality method was substantially equivalent to the manual approach in terms of mean CSA values and test-retest reliability.

conclusionsWith this study, we propose a proportionality method for the assignment of cervical SC vertebral levels that can simplify the processing of MRI datasets in the context of CSA measurements.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultCervical CordFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSpinal CordYoung Adultcross‐sectional areaspinal cord atrophyspinal cord MRIvertebral levels

Identifiers

PMID39370554
PMCPMC12522076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.