Quantitative identification and segmentation repeatability of thoracic spinal muscle morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: MRI derived spinal-muscle morphology measurements have potential diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications in spinal health. Muscle morphology in the thoracic spine is an important determinant of kyphosis severity in older adults. However, the literature on quantification of spinal muscles to date has been limited to cervical and lumbar regions. Hence, we aim to propose a method to quantitatively identify regions of interest of thoracic spinal muscle in axial MR images and investigate the repeatability of their measurements. METHODS: Middle (T4-T5) and lower (T8-T9) thoracic levels of six healthy volunteers (age 26 ± 6 years) were imaged in an upright open scanner (0.5T MROpen, Paramed, Genoa, Italy). A descriptive methodology for defining the regions of interest of trapezius, erector spinae, and transversospinalis in axial MR images was developed. The guidelines for segmentation are laid out based on the points of origin and insertion, probable size, shape, and the position of the muscle groups relative to other recognizable anatomical landmarks as seen from typical axial MR images. 2D parameters such as muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and muscle position (radius and angle) with respect to the vertebral body centroid were computed and 3D muscle geometries were generated. Intra and inter-rater segmentation repeatability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC (3,1)) for 2D parameters and with dice coefficient (DC) for 3D parameters. RESULTS: Intra and inter-rater repeatability for 2D and 3D parameters for all muscles was generally good/excellent (average ICC (3,1) = 0.9 with ranges of 0.56-0.98; average DC = 0.92 with ranges from 0.85-0.95). CONCLUSION: The guidelines proposed are important for reliable MRI-based measurements and allow meaningful comparisons of muscle morphometry in the thoracic spine across different studies globally. Good segmentation repeatability suggests we can further investigate the effect of posture and spinal curvature on muscle morphology in the thoracic spine.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".