ArticleJOR spine2026
Application of Statistical Shape Models to Standard Lumbar MRI for Stenosis Treatment Stratification: Severe Versus Normal Stenosis.
Article in JOR spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Statistical shape modelling of the human lumbar spine: a scoping review characterising the research landscape and potential clinical applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a prevalent and debilitating diagnosis, which in severe cases requires surgical treatment to relieve nerve root pressure. Often, treatment plans are based in part on subjective, qualitative, and limited MRI assessment. Statistical shape models (SSMs) have the potential to improve treatment indications by uncovering morphological features that work synergistically but are difficult to assess independently or directly quantify. This study examined whether 2D SSM using standard clinically relevant MRIs can differentiate between severe and normal stenosis patients in a population with low back pain. Methods: A total of 62 patients were analyzed from an open-access Lumbar Spine MRI dataset, with variable parameters, and classified as severe or normal stenosis (at L45). Intervertebral disc (IVD) and posterior element (PE) edges were extracted using the SegNet algorithm, then aligned via generalized Procrustes analysis. Aligned shapes were used for principal component analysis and principal components (PCs) were evaluated for IVD and PE independently and together. To observe if SSMs improved from anatomical measurements, facet angles, spinous process length, IVD, and thecal sac diameters were manually extracted. ANOVA and ROC analysis was run to determine the measurements' ability to discriminate between groups. Results: PC1 explained 38% and 32% of the IVD and combined (IVD & PE) shape variances and had a clear difference between the severe and normal stenosis groups ( Conclusions: SSMs were able to distinguish between the severe and normal stenosis groups, specifically PC1 for both IVD and combined SSMs. Hence, this study demonstrates that SSMs could be a quantitative tool to improve stenosis diagnosis and treatment planning using clinical 2D MRIs.
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.