ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Interpretable machine learning model integrating MRI-derived paraspinal muscle parameters for predicting new vertebral compression fractures after vertebral augmentation.
Article in European radiology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate interpretable machine learning (ML) models incorporating MRI-derived paraspinal muscle parameters to predict new vertebral compression fractures (NVCF) after vertebral augmentation. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) who underwent vertebral augmentation with a 2-year follow-up. Data from two centers were merged and randomly divided (8:2) into training and test sets, while data from the third center served as an independent external validation set. Clinical variables, radiographic parameters, and MRI-derived muscle parameters-including paraspinal muscle fat infiltration (PMFI) and psoas muscle index (PMI)-were analyzed. Variable selection was performed using LASSO and logistic regression. Seven supervised ML algorithms were trained and compared using the area under the curve (AUC), calibration, and decision curve analyses. SHAP values were used to enhance the clinical interpretability of the ML models by providing transparent explanations of model predictions.
resultsA total of 359 patients (median age, 75 years [IQR 69-80]; 77 men) were included, with NVCF occurring in 133 patients (37.0%). Six independent predictors-age, bone mineral density (BMD), PMFI, PMI, kyphotic angle correction rate (KACR), and Genant semiquantitative grade (GSQ)-were identified. The random forest model showed the best performance, with AUCs of 0.963, 0.913, and 0.837 in the training, test, and external validation sets (n = 53), respectively. SHAP analysis indicated that PMI, PMFI, age, and BMD contributed most to model prediction.
conclusionThis interpretable ML model combining MRI-based muscle metrics with conventional factors achieved strong predictive performance and may assist in personalized management after vertebral augmentation. KEY POINTS: Question New vertebral compression fractures after vertebral augmentation cause substantial morbidity, yet reliable risk stratification is lacking, and the prognostic value of MRI-derived paraspinal muscle remains unclear. Findings An interpretable random forest model incorporating MRI-derived paraspinal muscle fat infiltration and psoas muscle index accurately predicted new vertebral compression fractures after vertebral augmentation. Clinical relevance Incorporating MRI-derived paraspinal muscle quality into machine learning models improves risk stratification for new vertebral compression fractures, supporting personalized clinical decision-making, targeted follow-up, and early preventive strategies after vertebral augmentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42141290What 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.