Artificial intelligence for segmentation and classification in lumbar spinal stenosis: an overview of current methods
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a frequently occurring condition defined by narrowing of the spinal or nerve root canal due to degenerative changes. Physicians use MRI scans to determine the severity of stenosis, occasionally complementing it with X-ray or CT scans during the diagnostic work-up. However, manual grading of stenosis is time-consuming and induces inter-reader variability as a standardized grading system is lacking. Machine Learning (ML) has the potential to aid physicians in this process by automating segmentation and classification of LSS. However, it is unclear what models currently exist to perform these tasks. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed by searching the Cochrane Library, Embase, Emcare, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for studies describing an ML-based algorithm to perform segmentation or classification of the lumbar spine for LSS. Risk of bias was assessed through an adjusted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale that was more applicable to ML studies. Qualitative analyses were performed based on type of algorithm (conventional ML or Deep Learning (DL)) and task (segmentation or classification). RESULTS: A total of 27 articles were included of which nine on segmentation, 16 on classification and 2 on both tasks. The majority of studies focused on algorithms for MRI analysis. There was wide variety among the outcome measures used to express model performance. Overall, ML algorithms are able to perform segmentation and classification tasks excellently. DL methods tend to demonstrate better performance than conventional ML models. For segmentation the best performing DL models were U-Net based. For classification U-Net and unspecified CNNs powered the models that performed the best for the majority of outcome metrics. The number of models with external validation was limited. CONCLUSION: DL models achieve excellent performance for segmentation and classification tasks for LSS, outperforming conventional ML algorithms. However, comparisons between studies are challenging due to the variety in outcome measures and test datasets. Future studies should focus on the segmentation task using DL models and utilize a standardized set of outcome measures and publicly available test dataset to express model performance. In addition, these models need to be externally validated to assess generalizability.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».