Reliability of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods in the Assessment of Spinal Canal Stenosis and Cord Compression in Cervical Myelopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Prospective, blinded reliability study of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures in patients with cervical myelopathy. Objective. To assess the intra- and interobserver reliability of commonly used quantitative MRI measures such as transverse area (TA) of spinal cord, compression ratio (CR), maximum canal compromise (MCC), and maximum spinal cord compression (MSCC). Summary of Background Data. There is no consensus on an optimal quantitative MRI method(s) in assessing canal stenosis and cord compression. Methods. Seven surgeons performed measurements on 17 digital MR images, on 4 separate occasions. The degree of stenosis was evaluated by measuring TA and CR on axial T2, MCC, and MSCC on midsagittal T1- and T2-weighted MRI sequences, respectively. Statistical analyses included repeated-measures analysis of variance and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results. The mean ± SD for intraobserver ICC was 0.88 ± 0.1 for MCC, 0.76 ± 0.08 for MSCC, 0.92 ± 0.07 for TA, and 0.82 ± 0.13 for CR. In addition, the interobserver ICC was 0.75 ± 0.04 for MCC, 0.79 ± 0.09 for MSCC, 0.80 ± 0.05 for CR, and 0.86 ± 0.03 for TA. Higher degree of canal compromise (MCC) was associated with lower modified version of Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale score (P = 0.05). Also, a strong association was found between MSCC and lower modified version of Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale score, greater number of steps, and longer walking time (P < 0.05). Conclusion. All 4 measurement techniques demonstrated a good to moderately high degree of intra- and interobserver reliability. Highest reliability was noted in the assessment of T2-weighted sequences and axial MRI. Our results show that the measurements of MCC, MSCC, and CR are sufficiently reliable and correlate well with clinical severity of cervical myelopathy. Magnetic resonance images from patients with cervical myelopathy were examined by 7 surgeons to assess the reliability of 4 quantitative magnetic resonance imaging measurements: transverse area, compression ratio, maximum spinal cord, and canal stenosis in ascertaining the severity of cervical myelopathy. All 4 parameters had high to moderate intra- and interobserver reliability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".