Progression and Determinants of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measures of Lumbar Disc Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A longitudinal study. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to explore the role of digital magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, by extending our earlier 5-year follow-up study of progression of lumbar spine degeneration with quantitative measures of disc degeneration. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A longitudinal study is optimal for investigating disc degeneration but only a few studies (with small sample sizes) or short follow-up studies include repeated MRI data. METHODS: Subjects consisted of 134 male monozygotic twins (age 35-69 years). Quantitative MRI measures included changes in disc bulging and height. Inter-rater reliability coefficients were between 0.77 and 0.96. At baseline and follow-up, an extensive interview about exposures to suspected determinants was conducted. RESULTS: Reduction in disc height and increases in bulges (worsening) were seen in 2/3 of subjects. The mean reduction in disc height was 2.2% to 3.6%. A mean increase in bulging of 7% to 10% was found in the L1-L4 discs and 4% in L4-S1 discs. Although the mean changes were small, few reverse changes were observed. Familial aggregation, a proxy for genetic influences, explained 17% of changes in disc height, and 11% and 0% of changes in the sizes of anterior and posterior bulges in the regression models. Higher maximal occupational lifting (AR2 = 4.9%) and smoking (AR2 = 3.5%) during follow-up predicted more disc height reduction. Greater increases in bulging (AR2 = 7.4%-10.2%) were predicted by smaller bulges at baseline. CONCLUSION: The mean annual changes in disc heights (<1%) and bulges (<2%) were small, and included both decreases and increases, with only a few subjects showing more major changes in either direction. The role of genetics was largest except in posterior bulges, but lifting and smoking were also associated with disc height reduction but none of the other studied risk factors were associated with anterior or posterior disc bulging. Different degenerative findings have different determinants of progression.
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 | 0.000 | 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".