ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Classification of spinal tuberculous infection, pyogenic infection and spinal metastasis from magnetic resonance imaging using machine learning.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical and imaging factors associated with paraplegia at presentation in thoracic spinal tuberculosis.International orthopaedics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiating between spinal tuberculosis, pyogenic (bacterial) spondylitis and spinal metastasis remains a major diagnostic challenge because their radiological features often overlap. Delayed or incorrect diagnosis may lead to inappropriate treatment, permanent disability or death.
objectiveTo develop and evaluate deep learning models for automated classification of spinal tuberculosis, pyogenic infection, and spinal metastasis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsT2-weighted sagittal MRI scans from 120 patients (40 per disease group) with pathologically or microbiologically confirmed diagnoses between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Lesion regions were manually annotated by radiologists, and data were split into 80% training and 20% testing sets at the patient level. Extensive data augmentation (rotation ± 5°, zoom 1.1-1.2×, shearing ± 5°, grid distortion 2 × 2) was applied to mitigate overfitting. Three models were trained and compared: (1) a single-layer perceptron baseline, (2) a custom dense neural network (2 × 1024 neurons), and (3) pre-trained convolutional neural networks (ResNet50, VGG16, InceptionV3). Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score on both whole and segmented images.
resultsAfter augmentation, 1,000 synthetic samples were generated per class. The baseline model achieved 27-33% accuracy, whereas the dense and pre-trained models achieved 98-100% accuracy on the test set. Although pre-trained networks demonstrated marginally higher performance, the difference compared with the dense model was not statistically significant. Activation heatmaps revealed inconsistent localization of attention regions, suggesting potential overfitting and limitations in visualization interpretability.
conclusionDeep learning models demonstrated strong potential in distinguishing between spinal tuberculosis, bacterial spondylitis, and spinal metastasis on MRI. However, the near-perfect performance likely reflects dataset homogeneity and augmentation effects rather than full generalization. External, multi-center validation and improved interpretability methods (e.g., Grad-CAM) are warranted to confirm clinical applicability and ensure reliable decision support for radiologists.
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.