ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Comprehensive comparative analysis of explainable deep learning model for differentiation of brucellar spondylitis and tuberculous spondylitis through MRI sequences.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe differentiation of brucellar spondylitis (BS) from tuberculous spondylitis (TS) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a critical clinical challenge. While deep learning holds promise, the optimal architectural strategy for integrating information from multi-sequence MRI remains unclear. This study systematically compared distinct deep learning architectures to identify a valid and effective integration strategy for this diagnostic problem.
methodsIn this retrospective, single-center diagnostic study, we included 235 patients with surgically and pathologically confirmed BS (n = 82) or TS (n = 153) from January 2014 to December 2024. We systematically evaluated four distinct architectural strategies for processing sagittal T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and fat-suppressed MRI sequences: (1) baseline models trained on single sequences; (2) a single-branch model that fused sequences as input channels; (3) a heterogeneous multi-branch model using different backbones for each sequence; and (4) a homogeneous multi-branch model using identical backbones. Models were developed on patient-level data splits for training (70%), validation (15%), and internal testing (15%). The primary performance metric was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) on the test set. Statistical significance of performance differences between models was assessed using the DeLong test, with P values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.
resultsThe single-branch fusion model, which treated the three sequences as channels in a single input, failed to learn, yielding performance equivalent to random chance (test AUC range: 0.474-0.538). In stark contrast, both the single-sequence and multi-branch architectures proved to be effective. The best single-sequence model achieved a test AUC of 0.765 (95% CI 0.759-0.771). The optimal multi-branch model, which successfully integrated all three sequences, achieved a comparable test AUC of 0.764 (95% CI 0.757-0.770).
conclusionsThe choice of architecture for integrating multi-sequence MRI data is a critical determinant of model viability. Our findings demonstrate that naive channel wise fusion is an invalid strategy for this task. In contrast, both processing a single MRI sequence and utilizing a multi-branch parallel-processing architecture are valid and effective strategies, achieving comparable diagnostic performance. This study clarifies the architectural principles required for successfully applying deep learning to this multi-modal diagnostic challenge.
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.