ArticleJB & JS open access
Predicting Nonidiopathic Scoliosis from Plain Radiographs: A Deep-Learning Approach.
Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Scoliosis has various etiologies, ranging from idiopathic, congenital, to those with spinal cord abnormalities. Advanced imaging is not always feasible and limited by cost, low-yield, and anesthesia risks in children. Given artificial intelligence's potential, we hypothesize that a deep learning (DL)-based image classifier will demonstrate superior performance in radiographic classification of scoliosis etiology compared witht experienced spine surgeons based on spine radiographs. Methods: One thousand thirty-six pediatric patients from single institution with scoliosis diagnosis and paired anterior-posterior - lateral images were included. Patients were manually classified based on their scoliosis etiology from chart review, including previous spine imaging studies when available. Categories included idiopathic, congenital, and spinal cord pathology. Images were randomized and assigned for training, validation, and testing. A DL-classifier using EfficientNet B4 architecture was trained on the radiographs. Accuracy and positive predictive value as defined by precision, recall, and F1-score were calculated to assess final performance metrics. Results: The trained classifier performed well at identifying correct etiologies, with F1-Score (harmonic mean of precision-recall) of 0.97. Model precision was 0.99 for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, 0.89 for congenital, and 0.78 for spinal cord pathology. Performance was higher on more common classes, with lower performance observed in class with fewer images. The algorithm has highest overall precision (0.96), recall (0.96), and F1 (0.96), while Surgeons 1 and 2 have lower accuracies (precision 0.80, recall 0.79, and F1 0.79 and precision 0.76, recall 0.67, and F10.71, respectively). There was no clear pattern identified regarding the surgeons' errors and poor agreement on which X-rays corresponded to underlying spinal cord pathology. Conclusion: A DL-convolutional-neural-network classifier has been trained to high degree of accuracy to distinguish between 3 scoliosis etiologies on pediatric spine radiographs. This model could provide a novel tool to clinicians to decide when to refer for axial imaging. It had superior diagnostic performance compared with experienced spine surgeons. After further validation and refinement, a clinician could put a patient's X-rays into the predictive tool for analysis and use the results to discuss with the family the risk of finding spinal cord pathology, helping them determine together the best timing for an MRI. Level of Evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.