SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Artificial intelligence for segmentation and classification in lumbar spinal stenosis: an overview of current methods.
Synthesis in 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning for the diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Five-year outcomes from a multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive interspinous fixation versus open direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Balancing accuracy and efficiency in lumbar spine image segmentation using multi-scale attention and residual learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Spine Neuroimaging: Diagnostic and Prognostic Utility of Novel Biomarkers in Lower Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Automated deep learning pipeline for measuring lumbar thecal sac AP diameter on mid-sagittal MR images.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a frequently occurring condition defined by narrowing of the spinal or nerve root canal due to degenerative changes. Physicians use MRI scans to determine the severity of stenosis, occasionally complementing it with X-ray or CT scans during the diagnostic work-up. However, manual grading of stenosis is time-consuming and induces inter-reader variability as a standardized grading system is lacking. Machine Learning (ML) has the potential to aid physicians in this process by automating segmentation and classification of LSS. However, it is unclear what models currently exist to perform these tasks.
methodsA systematic review of literature was performed by searching the Cochrane Library, Embase, Emcare, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for studies describing an ML-based algorithm to perform segmentation or classification of the lumbar spine for LSS. Risk of bias was assessed through an adjusted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale that was more applicable to ML studies. Qualitative analyses were performed based on type of algorithm (conventional ML or Deep Learning (DL)) and task (segmentation or classification).
resultsA total of 27 articles were included of which nine on segmentation, 16 on classification and 2 on both tasks. The majority of studies focused on algorithms for MRI analysis. There was wide variety among the outcome measures used to express model performance. Overall, ML algorithms are able to perform segmentation and classification tasks excellently. DL methods tend to demonstrate better performance than conventional ML models. For segmentation the best performing DL models were U-Net based. For classification U-Net and unspecified CNNs powered the models that performed the best for the majority of outcome metrics. The number of models with external validation was limited.
conclusionDL models achieve excellent performance for segmentation and classification tasks for LSS, outperforming conventional ML algorithms. However, comparisons between studies are challenging due to the variety in outcome measures and test datasets. Future studies should focus on the segmentation task using DL models and utilize a standardized set of outcome measures and publicly available test dataset to express model performance. In addition, these models need to be externally validated to assess generalizability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39883162What 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.