Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41520069›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Quantifying central canal stenosis prediction uncertainty in SpineNet with conformal prediction.

Andrea Cina, Maria Monzon, Fabio Galbusera, Catherine R Jutzeler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Andrea CinaDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology (D-HEST), ETH Zurich, Universitätstrasse 2, Zürich, 8092, Switzerland. andrea.cina@hest.ethz.ch.
Maria MonzonDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology (D-HEST), ETH Zurich, Universitätstrasse 2, Zürich, 8092, Switzerland.
Fabio GalbuseraSchulthess Clinic, Department of Teaching, Research and Development, Zürich, Switzerland.
Catherine R JutzelerDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology (D-HEST), ETH Zurich, Universitätstrasse 2, Zürich, 8092, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study applies conformal prediction (CP) to SpineNet to quantify prediction uncertainty in the classification of central canal stenosis (CCS) into four grades: normal, mild, moderate, and severe. CP provides prediction sets rather than singleton predictions with a guaranteed probability of containing the true class, offering a transparent way to assess model reliability. This makes CP particularly useful in the medical field, where reliable predictions are critical for decision-making. We analysed 1689 vertebral levels (L1/L2 to L5/S1) from 340 patients who underwent T2-weighted MRI examinations and evaluated four CP methods across multiple significance level. (α). Bootstrap resampling was used to assess robustness across calibration/test splits. Among the evaluated CP methods, the class-conditional CP method consistently achieved the desired coverage while producing the smallest prediction set siss. Top-k produced larger, uninformative prediction sets (~ 4), and Least Ambiguous Set-Valued Classifiers (LAC) and Adaptive Prediction Sets (APS) showed reduced performance, particularly in moderate and severe cases. A class- and level-specific analysis with class-conditional CP (α = 0.15) revealed smaller prediction sets for normal and mild grades (~ 1.5) and larger sets (~ 2.7-3) for less frequent moderate and severe grades, reflecting higher uncertainty in these categories. Overall class-conditional CP emerged as the most reliable and clinically informative approach for estimating uncertainty in CCS grading.

Indexed as

Spinal StenosisHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPrediction AlgorithmsReproducibility of ResultsUncertaintyConformal predictionDeep learningSpineNetStenosisUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID41520069
PMCPMC12876996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.