ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Deep learning-based synthetic CT for the assessment of spinal structural lesions in axial spondyloarthritis.
Article in Skeletal 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of synthetic CT for detecting spinal structural lesions in patients with suspected axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with inflammatory back pain who underwent both spinal CT and MRI examinations were included in this retrospective study. Two readers independently assessed the presence of structural lesions (facet joint ankylosis, structural Andersson lesions, discal ossifications, vertebral ankylosis, syndesmophytes, and erosions) on conventional CT and synthetic CT images. Feature detection accuracy of synthetic CT relative to conventional CT was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, with consensus reading as the reference standard. In addition, lesion-level erosion detection accuracy was assessed, and erosion size was compared between conventional CT and synthetic CT.
resultsEighty-seven patients (mean age, 41 ± 14.2 years; range, 18-80 years; 42 males and 45 females) were included. Sensitivity of synthetic CT was 1.00 for facet joint ankylosis, structural Andersson lesions, vertebral ankylosis, and erosions, 0.91 for syndesmophytes, and 0.67 for discal ossifications. Specificity ranged from 0.97 to 1.00 across all lesion types. Lesion-level analysis showed sensitivity of 0.82-1.00 and specificity of 0.96-1.00 for erosion detection across different spinal regions. No significant differences of erosion size (median [IQR], mm) between conventional CT and synthetic CT (width, 7.7 [4.4-9.7] vs. 8.0 [4.1-9.6], P = 0.15; depth, 4.5 [3.5-6.7] vs. 4.5 [3.5-6.5], P = 0.12).
conclusionSynthetic CT demonstrates a high feature detection accuracy for assessing most spinal structural lesions in patients with suspected axSpA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42841950What 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.