Shape, texture and statistical features for classification of benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures in magnetic resonance images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) result in partial collapse of vertebral bodies. They usually are nontraumatic or occur with low-energy trauma in the elderly secondary to different etiologies, such as insufficiency fractures of bone fragility in osteoporosis (benign fractures) or vertebral metastasis (malignant fractures). Our study aims to classify VCFs in T1-weighted magnetic resonance images (MRI). METHODS: We used the median sagittal planes of lumbar spine MRIs from 63 patients (38 women and 25 men) previously diagnosed with VCFs. The lumbar vertebral bodies were manually segmented and statistical features of gray levels were computed from the histogram. We also extracted texture and shape features to analyze the contours of the vertebral bodies. In total, 102 lumbar VCFs (53 benign and 49 malignant) and 89 normal lumbar vertebral bodies were analyzed. The k-nearest-neighbor method, a neural network with radial basis functions, and a naïve Bayes classifier were used with feature selection. We compared the classification obtained by these classifiers with the final diagnosis of each case, including biopsy for the malignant fractures and clinical and laboratory follow up for the benign fractures. RESULTS: The results obtained show an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97 in distinguishing between normal and fractured vertebral bodies, and 0.92 in discriminating between benign and malignant fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed classification methods based on shape, texture, and statistical features have provided high accuracy and may assist in the diagnosis of VCFs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".