Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39829182›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2025

Performance and clinical implications of machine learning models for detecting cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a systematic review.

Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Sung Tan Cho, Watcharaporn Cholamjiak, Peem Sarasombath, Nattaphon Twinprai, Prin Twinprai, Inbo Han

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Benchmarking deep learning pipelines for surgical instrument segmentation in endoscopic spine surgery: cross-dataset evaluation under deployment-realistic conditions.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Wongthawat LiawrungrueangDepartment of Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand.
Sung Tan ChoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Seonam Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Watcharaporn CholamjiakDepartment of Mathematics, School of Science, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand.
Peem SarasombathDepartment of Orthopaedics, Phramongkutklao Hospital and College of Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand.
Nattaphon TwinpraiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Prin TwinpraiDepartment of Radiology, Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Inbo HanDepartment of Neurosurgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) is a significant spinal condition that can lead to severe neurological deficits. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have led to the development of promising tools for the early detection and diagnosis of OPLL. This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML and DL models and clinical implications in OPLL detection. A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. Eligible studies included those utilizing ML or DL models for OPLL detection using imaging data. All studies were assessed for the risk of bias using appropriate tools. The key performance metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), were analyzed. Eleven studies, comprising a total of 6,031 patients, were included. The ML and DL models demonstrated high diagnostic performance, with accuracy rates ranging from 69.6% to 98.9% and AUC values up to 0.99. Convolutional neural networks and random forest models were the most used approaches. The overall risk of bias was moderate, and concerns were primarily related to participant selection and missing data. In conclusion, ML and DL models show great potential for accurate detection of OPLL, particularly when integrated with imaging techniques. However, to ensure clinical applicability, further research is warranted to validate these findings in more extensive and diverse populations.

Indexed as

Deep learningDiagnosisMachine learningNeural networksOssification of posterior longitudinal ligament

Identifiers

PMID39829182
PMCPMC11895113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.