Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39470797›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

SPINEPS-automatic whole spine segmentation of T2-weighted MR images using a two-phase approach to multi-class semantic and instance segmentation.

Hendrik Möller, Robert Graf, Joachim Schmitt, Benjamin Keinert, Hanna Schön, Matan Atad, Anjany Sekuboyina, Felix Streckenbach, Florian Kofler, Thomas Kroencke and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

19 authors.

Hendrik MöllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. hendrik.moeller@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-1978-5894
Robert GrafDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Joachim SchmittDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Benjamin KeinertDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hanna SchönDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Matan AtadDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Anjany SekuboyinaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Felix StreckenbachDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Florian KoflerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thomas KroenckeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Stefanie BetteDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Stefan N WillichInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas KeilInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Thoralf NiendorfMax Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association, Berlin, Germany.
Tobias PischonMolecular Epidemiology Research Group, Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Beate EndemannMax Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association, Berlin, Germany.
Bjoern MenzeDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel RueckertInstitut Für KI Und Informatik in Der Medizin, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan S KirschkeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council 101045128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIntroducing SPINEPS, a deep learning method for semantic and instance segmentation of 14 spinal structures (ten vertebra substructures, intervertebral discs, spinal cord, spinal canal, and sacrum) in whole-body sagittal T2-weighted turbo spin echo images. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis local ethics committee-approved study utilized a public dataset (train/test 179/39 subjects, 137 female), a German National Cohort (NAKO) subset (train/test 1412/65 subjects, mean age 53, 694 female), and an in-house dataset (test 10 subjects, mean age 70, 5 female). SPINEPS is a semantic segmentation model, followed by a sliding window approach utilizing a second model to create instance masks from the semantic ones. Segmentation evaluation metrics included the Dice score and average symmetrical surface distance (ASSD). Statistical significance was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

resultsOn the public dataset, SPINEPS outperformed a nnUNet baseline on every structure and metric (e.g., an average over vertebra instances: dice 0.933 vs 0.911, p < 0.001, ASSD 0.21 vs 0.435, p < 0.001). SPINEPS trained on automated annotations of the NAKO achieves an average global Dice score of 0.918 on the combined NAKO and in-house test split. Adding the training data from the public dataset outperforms this (average instance-wise Dice score over the vertebra substructures 0.803 vs 0.778, average global Dice score 0.931 vs 0.918).

conclusionSPINEPS offers segmentation of 14 spinal structures in T2w sagittal images. It provides a semantic mask and an instance mask separating the vertebrae and intervertebral discs. This is the first publicly available algorithm to enable this segmentation. KEY POINTS: Question No publicly available automatic approach can yield semantic and instance segmentation masks for the whole spine (including posterior elements) in T2-weighted sagittal TSE images. Findings Segmenting semantically first and then instance-wise outperforms a baseline trained directly on instance segmentation. The developed model produces high-resolution MRI segmentations for the whole spine. Clinical relevance This study introduces an automatic approach to whole spine segmentation, including posterior elements, in arbitrary fields of view T2w sagittal MR images, enabling easy biomarker extraction, automatic localization of pathologies and degenerative diseases, and quantifying analyses as downstream research.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingSpineAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSemanticsDeep learningIntervertebral discMagnetic resonance imagingSpineVertebral body

Identifiers

PMID39470797
PMCPMC11836161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.