Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41615443›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Osteoporosis prediction using lumbar CT Hounsfield units: comparative performance and clinical implications of seven machine learning models.

Akihiko Hiyama, Daisuke Sakai, Hiroyuki Katoh, Masato Sato, Masahiko Watanabe

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Akihiko HiyamaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan. a.hiyama@tokai.ac.jp.
Daisuke SakaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan.
Hiroyuki KatohDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan.
Masato SatoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan.
Masahiko WatanabeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the utility of L1-L4 average Hounsfield Unit (HU) values from lumbar spine computed tomography (CT) in predicting osteoporosis using multiple machine learning (ML) models.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 172 patients (≥ 50 years) who underwent lumbar spine surgery and received preoperative CT and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) within 3 months. Osteoporosis was defined as a T-score < - 2.5 at either the lumbar spine or femoral neck. The L1-L4 average HU value was used as the sole input variable to develop seven supervised ML models. Model performance was compared using accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and HU-based thresholds for osteoporosis screening were explored.

resultsOf 172 patients, 59 (34.3%) were classified as having osteoporosis. The osteoporosis group showed significantly lower L1-L4 HU values than the non-osteoporosis group (105.1 ± 47.5 vs. 140.1 ± 61.3, p < 0.01). Among the models, K-nearest neighbors (KNN) achieved the most balanced diagnostic performance (accuracy: 0.714 ± 0.048; F1 score: 0.466 ± 0.073). Logistic Regression and Naive Bayes showed the highest AUCs (0.785 ± 0.096 and 0.777 ± 0.098, respectively) but limited recall, whereas Support Vector Machine demonstrated moderate performance. Tree-based models yielded comparatively lower discriminatory ability. Optimal HU ranges for identifying high osteoporosis risk generally converged around 90-130 HU.

conclusionsML models using L1-L4 HU values can aid in osteoporosis screening. KNN provided the most robust and balanced diagnostic performance, while Logistic Regression and SVM offered stable threshold-based classification. These findings support the utility of CT-based ML approaches in preoperative spinal surgery settings, particularly where DXA is unavailable or limited.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeMachine LearningOsteoporosisTomography, X-Ray ComputedAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedClassification AlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.