ArticleF1000Research2024
Role of Artificial intelligence model in prediction of low back pain using T2 weighted MRI of Lumbar spine.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Potential applications of artificial intelligence in pain management: a scoping review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance of Computed Tomography-Based Machine Learning Models in the Classification of Adnexal Masses - A Systematic Review.F1000Research · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning based radiomics approach for outcome prediction of meningioma - a systematic review.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- Applications of MR Finger printing derived T1 and T2 values in Adult brain: A Systematic review.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Spine Neuroimaging: Diagnostic and Prognostic Utility of Novel Biomarkers in Lower Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Radiomics and Back Pain.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Bioengineering Support in the Assessment and Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Low Back Pain Among Health Sciences Undergraduates: Results Obtained from a Machine-Learning Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of sagittal measurements of cervical spine in spondylosis patients between Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Radiograph.F1000Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Low back pain (LBP), the primary cause of disability, is the most common musculoskeletal disorder globally and the primary cause of disability. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are inconclusive and less sensitive for identifying and classifying patients with LBP. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the role of artificial intelligence (AI) models in the prediction of LBP using T2 weighted MRI image of the lumbar spine. Methods: This was a prospective case-control study. A total of 200 MRI patients (100 cases and controls each) referred for lumbar spine and whole spine screening were included. The scans were performed using 3.0 Tesla MRI (United Imaging Healthcare). T2 weighted images of the lumbar spine were segmented to extract radiomic features. Machine learning (ML) models, such as random forest, decision tree, logistic regression, K-nearest neighbors, adaboost, and deep learning methods (DL), such as ResNet and GoogleNet, were used, and performance measures were calculated. Results: Our study showed that Random forest and AdaBoost are the most reliable ML models for predicting LBP. Random forest showed high performance with area under curve (AUC) values from 0.83 to 0.88 across all lumbar vertebrae and L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 intervertebral discs (IVDs), with AUCs of 0.88 the highest at L5-S1 IVD (0.92). Adaboost demonstrated high performance at the L2-L5 vertebrae with AUC values of 0.82 to 0.90, with the highest AUC (0.97) at the L5-S1 IVD. Among the DL models, GoogleNet outperformed the other models at 30 epochs with an accuracy of 0.85, followed by ResNet 18 (30 epochs) with an accuracy of 0.84. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that ML and DL models can effectively predict LBP from MRI T2 weighted image of the lumbar spine. ML and DL models could also enhance the diagnostic accuracy of LBP, potentially leading to better patient management and outcomes.
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.