Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42274744›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Spinal cord FDG PET uptake in healthy adults: an AI-driven segmentation study.

Rithvik Kata, Darshil Patel, Om H Gandhi, Divya Sankisa, Devi K Schwartz, Shiv Patil, William Lee, Ondrej Fanta, Thomas Werner, Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Rithvik Kata *University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Darshil Patel *University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Om H GandhiUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Divya SankisaUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Devi K SchwartzUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Shiv PatilUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
William LeeUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Ondrej FantaUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Thomas WernerUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Poul Flemming Høilund-CarlsenOdense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Mona-Elisabeth RevheimThe Intervention Center, Rikshospitalet, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway. monar@ous-hf.no.
Abass AlaviUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose

methodsThis was a retrospective, cross-sectional observational study conducted using data from the CAMONA clinical trial at Odense University Hospital, Denmark. 76 healthy adult participants (mean age 44.66 ± 14.04 years; 53.9% male) were selected from a total of 139 subjects in the CAMONA trial. All participants were free from chronic medical conditions. Primary outcomes include mean standardized uptake values (SUVmean) of FDG in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spinal cord regions. Secondary outcomes include correlations of SUVmean with age, sex, BMI, HbA1c, and inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, WBC, homocysteine, fibrinogen). Participants underwent FDG PET/CT imaging 180 min post-injection of 4.0 MBq/kg FDG. Using TotalSegmentator, an AI-driven segmentation tool, the spinal cord was delineated into cervical, thoracic, and lumbar volumes of interest (VOIs). Regional SUVmeans were calculated and analyzed. Statistical tests included one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc, Spearman/Pearson correlations and t-tests to assess associations with age, sex, BMI, and inflammatory/metabolic biomarkers.

resultsFDG uptake was highest in the cervical spinal cord (SUVbw 1.36 ± 0.23), followed by the lumbar (0.85 ± 0.18) and thoracic (0.76 ± 0.17) regions (p < 0.001); this regional ordering was preserved after lean-body-mass-normalized SUV (SUL) recomputation. No significant associations were found with age or sex. BMI correlated positively with SUVbw across all regions (ρ = 0.34-0.47, all p ≤ 0.003); under SUL, the cervical and thoracic associations attenuated to non-significance (cervical ρ = +0.13, p = 0.255; thoracic ρ = +0.17, p = 0.151), whereas a residual lumbar association persisted (ρ = +0.32, 95% CI + 0.09 to + 0.52, p = 0.004). A nominal association between HbA1c and cervical uptake (ρ = 0.24, p = 0.040) did not survive Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (α = 0.0033) and is reported as exploratory. Inflammatory markers showed no significant correlation in any spinal cord region.

conclusionFDG PET/CT reveals consistent regional variation in spinal cord metabolic activity, with highest uptake in the cervical region. Normative uptake was stable across age and sex but showed a positive association with BMI when SUV was normalized to total body weight that was largely abolished after lean-body-mass normalization (SUL) in the cervical and thoracic regions but persisted in the lumbar region (lumbar SUL ρ = +0.32, 95% CI + 0.09 to + 0.52, p = 0.004). These findings offer foundational data for clinical interpretation and differentiation between physiology and pathology of spinal FDG PET/CT uptake and demonstrate the feasibility of AI-driven segmentation for standardized region-of-interest extraction in spinal imaging analysis.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBody mass indexCTDegenerationFDGFluorodeoxyglucoseImagingNeuroimagingPETScreeningSpinal cordSpine metabolismSUVmeanTotalSegmentator

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.