ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Investigating the Effects of Image Scaling Techniques in Radiographic Measurements of Spinal Alignment and Motion: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking AI: comparing a fully automated spinal motion solution to a validated analyst-driven technology.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Automated Metrics for the Diagnosis of Instability Between the 2nd and 7th Cervical Vertebrae.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Radiographic measurements from spinal radiographs are crucial in many diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. However, widely used manual line drawing techniques in DICOM viewers are associated with significant errors, partly due to the unreliability of DICOM scale factors. A recently developed algorithm has been engineered to scale radiographs using assumed vertebral endplate widths (EPWs). Use of EPW to scale radiographs can eliminate the need to determine image magnification. This study was designed to (1) quantify the measurement error associated with the standard of care DICOM scale factor and (2) evaluate the efficacy of the EPW scaling algorithm. Previously collected cervical and lumbar lateral radiographs with a calibration marker of known size were used to collect radiographic measures of spinal alignment and spinal motion. Three different scale factors were used to acquire mm-based measurements: (1) the ground truth scale factor; (2) the DICOM scale factor; and (3) the EPW scale factor. DICOM and EPW scaled measurements were compared with respect to ground truth measurements. The DICOM scaled radiographic measurements demonstrated significantly more error compared to the EPW scaled radiographic measurements across multiple X-ray types: 19.6% vs. 9.7% in cervical neutral lateral (p < 0.001), 19.8% vs. 9.9% in cervical flexion/extension (p < 0.001), 35.0% vs. 7.5% in lumbar neutral lateral (p < 0.001), and 35.7% vs. 7.7% in lumbar flexion/extension (p < 0.001). The EPW algorithm provides adequate scaling accuracy for many clinical applications and is associated with considerably lower error than traditional DICOM scaled measurements. Clinicians should be aware of the potential scale factor inaccuracies in their imaging and be cautious when making diagnostic and therapeutic decisions based on improperly scaled radiographs.
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.