ArticleJOR spine2026
Uncertainty Quantification of Central Canal Stenosis Deep Learning Classifier From Lumbar Sagittal T2-Weighted MRI.
Article in JOR spine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate assessment of the severity of central canal stenosis (CCS) on lumbar spine MRI is critical for clinical decision-making. We evaluated deep learning models for automated CCS grading on sagittal T2-weighted MRI, focusing on uncertainty quantification to improve clinical reliability. Methods: Using a retrospective cohort from the LumbarDISC dataset (1974 patients), we compared multiple deep learning architectures for three-level CCS classification (normal/mild, moderate, severe). To assess model confidence, Monte Carlo (MC) dropout and Test Time Augmentation (TTA) techniques were applied to quantify prediction uncertainty. Results: The fine-tuned Spine Grading Network (SGN) achieved a balanced accuracy of 79.4% and a macro F1 score of 68.8%, with per-class accuracies of 71.3% for moderate and 78.5% for severe stenosis. MC dropout revealed an increase in uncertainty predominantly in moderate and severe cases, while TTA uncertainty was higher for mild stenosis. Conclusion: DL-based CCS grading demonstrates potential to assist radiologists by providing rapid, standardized evaluations. Incorporating uncertainty quantification offers a safeguard to flag ambiguous cases, thus supporting clinical trust and facilitating safer integration of AI tools into the interpretation of spine MRI.
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.