Toward Automated 3D Spine Reconstruction from Biplanar Radiographs Using CNN for Statistical Spine Model Fitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, 3D spine reconstruction from biplanar radiographs involves intensive user supervision and semi-automated methods that are time-consuming and not effective in clinical routine. This paper proposes a new, fast, and automated 3D spine reconstruction method through which a realistic statistical shape model of the spine is fitted to images using convolutional neural networks (CNN). The CNNs automatically detect the anatomical landmarks controlling the spine model deformation through a hierarchical and gradual iterative process. The performance assessment used a set of 68 biplanar radiographs, composed of both asymptomatic subjects and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients, in order to compare automated reconstructions with ground truths build using multiple experts-supervised reconstructions. The mean (SD) errors of landmark locations (3D Euclidean distances) were 1.6 (1.3) mm, 1.8 (1.3) mm, and 2.3 (1.4) mm for the vertebral body center, endplate centers, and pedicle centers, respectively. The clinical parameters extracted from the automated 3D reconstruction (reconstruction time is less than one minute) presented an absolute mean error between 2.8° and 4.7° for the main spinal parameters and between 1° and 2.1° for pelvic parameters. Automated and expert's agreement analysis reported that, on average, 89% of automated measurements were inside the expert's confidence intervals. The proposed automated 3D spine reconstruction method provides an important step that should help the dissemination and adoption of 3D measurements in clinical routine.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".