ArticleNeurospine2026
Deep Learning-Assisted Lumbar Degeneration Evaluation Using Plain Radiographs: Development and Validation of a Novel Dual-Mechanism Architecture.
Article in Neurospine, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and externally validate a dual-mechanism deep learning (DL) model that integrates vertebral segmentation and lesion detection for automated evaluation of lumbar degeneration and structured report generation on plain radiographs. Methods: In this retrospective study, 5,964 patients who underwent standing anteroposterior and lateral lumbar radiographs at a single institution and 600 patients from a public dataset (BUU-Spine) were included. Vertebral corners from T11-L5 (and S1 on lateral views) and 7 degenerative findings (scoliosis, straightened/preserved lordosis, spondylolisthesis, disc space narrowing, osteophytes, vertebral compression, and abdominal aortic calcification) were annotated by 3 spine surgeons. Two independently trained, parallel networks were developed, including a ResNet-based segmentation network and a YOLOv8-based detection network. A rule-based integration strategy reconciled both outputs and generated structured diagnostic reports. Segmentation accuracy, quantitative measurement agreement, diagnostic performance, and clinical acceptability of reports were evaluated. Results: Intra- and interobserver landmark distances within 3 mm reached 96% and >95%, respectively. On the internal test set, the percentage of correct keypoints within 3 mm was 95.7%-98.6%, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.84-0.89 and Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of 0.90-0.94 for key radiographic parameters. The segmentation- and detection-based models achieved precision of 92.2%-96.9% and 91.7%-95.5%, and recall of 91.6%-94.8% and 93.3%-95.2%, respectively. Under the dual-positive condition, the integrated model yielded the highest precision (93.8%-97.3%), whereas the any-positive condition achieved the highest recall (94.1%-97.6%). Of 596 automatically generated structured reports, 557 (93.4%) were deemed clinically acceptable. Conclusion: The proposed dual-mechanism DL framework enables accurate, multilesion assessment of lumbar degeneration and generation of clinically acceptable structured reports from plain radiographs, supporting workflow optimization in lumbar spine imaging.
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.