Role of Quantitative MRI Assessments in Predicting Surgical Outcome in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Patients: Results from the Prospective, Multicenter AOSpine North American Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the commonest cause of spinal cord impairment in the elderly population worldwide. Though recent efforts have uncovered valuable clinical predictors of outcome in patients undergoing surgical decompression, the utility of MRI assessment in this regard remains equivocal. To address this fundamental knowledge gap, it is the objective of this study to quantitatively assess the role of MRI in predicting surgical outcome using multicenter prospective data. Material and Methods A total of 278 patients with at least one clinical sign of CSM were enrolled in AOSpine North American Study. Of these, baseline MRI data and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score (mJOA) assessment at 6 months were available for 101 patients. MRIs were reviewed by three investigators for the location of pathology and for presence or absence ( ± ) of signal change on T1 and T2 imaging. Quantitative analysis of T2 hyperintensity area, sagittal extent, and signal change ratios was also conducted. In addition, spinal canal compromise and spinal cord compression were measured on T2 imaging. The mJOA score was used as the primary outcome measure and was dichotomized to discriminate between patients with mild myelopathy postoperatively (≥ 16) and those with substantial residual neurological impairment (< 16). Univariate analyses assessed the relationship of baseline mJOA and MRI analysis with outcome. Logistic regression modeling followed a conceptual division of variables into three key groups: T1 signal analysis, T2 signal analysis, and anatomical measurements. Inclusion of variables in the final model was based on practical, clinical, and statistical considerations (including Akaike information criterion, AIC; Bayesian information criterion, BIC; area under the receiver operator curve characteristics; AUC). The final model was compared with a model containing only baseline mJOA using a likelihood-ratio test. Results In univariate analysis, baseline mJOA ( p < 0.0001), spinal canal compromise ( p = 0.0322), T2 hyperintensity area ( p = 0.0422), and maximum height ( p = 0.026) were all significantly associated with outcome. A single variable was used to describe T1 hypointensity ( ± ) and anatomical measurements (spinal canal compromise), and two variables were used to describe T2 hyperintensity signal characteristics (maximum height and Wang signal ratio) in the initial model. These four imaging variables along with baseline mJOA yielded an AUC of 0.849. Reduction of variables to create parsimony resulted in a final model including T1 hypointensity (OR = 0.242; CI: 0.068–0.866), spinal canal compromise (OR = 0.940; CI: 0.90–0.982), and baseline mJOA (OR = 1.743; CI: 1.353–2.245) with an AUC of 0.845, while reducing both the AIC and BIC. The AUC for the baseline mJOA-only model was 0.807. The likelihood-ratio test indicated superior performance of the full model compared with the mJOA-only model ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion Baseline mJOA is a strong predictor of postsurgical outcome in CSM at 6 months; however, a model inclusive of spinal canal compromise and T1 hypointensity assessment in addition to this provides a superior predictive capacity. This suggests that MRI analysis has a significant role in predicting surgical outcome. It is, therefore, recommended that a thorough MRI analysis be conducted in all patients with CSM considered for surgical treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".