ArticleJournal of the Korean Society of Radiology2024
Radiographic Analysis of Scoliosis Using Convolutional Neural Network in Clinical Practice.
Article in Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the reliability and accuracy of an automated Cobb angle measurement (ACAM) using a convolutional neural network (CNN) for scoliosis evaluation and to compare measurement times. Materials and Methods: ACAM was applied to spine radiographs in 411 patients suspected of scoliosis. Observer 1 (consensus of two musculoskeletal radiologists) and observer 2 (a radiology resident) measured Cobb angle (CA). CA measurements were categorized using observer 1's measurements as the reference standard. Inter-observer reliability and correlation were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, respectively. Accuracy and measurement time of ACAM and observers were evaluated. Results: ACAM demonstrated excellent reliability and very high correlation with observer 1 (ICC = 0.976, Spearman's rank correlation = 0.948), with a mean CA difference of 1.1. Overall accuracy was high (88.2%), particularly in mild (92.2%) and moderate (96%) scoliosis. Accuracy was lower in spinal asymmetry (77.1%) and higher in severe scoliosis (95%), although the CA was lower compared to the observers. ACAM significantly reduced measurement time by nearly half compared to the observers ( Conclusion: ACAM using CNN enhances CA measurement for assessing mild or moderate scoliosis, despite limitations in spinal asymmetry or severe scoliosis. Nonetheless, it substantially decreases measurement time.
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.