MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095945384 · doi:10.1007/s00330-020-07355-x

In vivo 3D tomography of the lumbar spine using a twin robotic X-ray system: quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the lumbar neural foramina in supine and upright position

2020· article· en· W3095945384 on OpenAlex
Anna L. Falkowski, Balázs K. Kovacs, Robyn Melanie Benz, Patrick Tobler, Stephan Schön, Bram Stieltjes, Anna Hirschmann

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersSiemens HealthineersUniversität Basel
KeywordsSupine positionMedicineNuclear medicineLumbarTomographyLumbar vertebraeAnatomyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives Supine lumbar spine examinations underestimate body weight effects on neuroforaminal size. Therefore, our purpose was to evaluate size changes of the lumbar neuroforamina using supine and upright 3D tomography and to initially assess image quality compared with computed tomography (CT). Methods The lumbar spines were prospectively scanned in 48 patients in upright (3D tomographic twin robotic X-ray) and supine (30 with 3D tomography, 18 with CT) position. Cross-sectional area (CSA), cranio-caudal (CC), and ventro-dorsal (VD) diameters of foramina were measured by two readers and additionally graded in relation to the intervertebral disc height. Visibility of bone/soft tissue structures and image quality were assessed independently on a 5-point Likert scale for the 18 patients scanned with both modalities. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test ( p < 0.05), and interreader reliability were calculated. Results Neuroforaminal size significantly decreased at all levels for both readers from the supine (normal intervertebral disc height; CSA 1.25 ± 0.32 cm 2 ; CC 1.84 ± 0.24 cm 2 ; VD 0.88 ± 0.16 cm 2 ) to upright position (CSA 1.12 ± 0.34 cm 2 ; CC 1.78 ± 0.24 cm 2 ; VD 0.83 ± 0.16 cm 2 ; each p < 0.001). Decrease in intervertebral disc height correlated with decrease in foraminal size (supine: CSA 0.88 ± 0.34 cm 2 ; CC 1.39 ± 0.33 cm 2 ; VD 0.87 ± 0.26 cm 2 ; upright: CSA 0.83 ± 0.37 cm 2 , p = 0.010; CC 1.32 ± 0.33 cm 2 , p = 0.015; VD 0.80 ± 0.21 cm 2 , p = 0.021). Interreader reliability for area was fair to excellent (0.51–0.89) with a wide range for cranio-caudal (0.32–0.74) and ventro-dorsal (0.03–0.70) distances. Image quality was superior for CT compared with that for 3D tomography ( p < 0.001; κ , CT = 0.66–0.92/3D tomography = 0.51–1.00). Conclusions The size of the lumbar foramina is smaller in the upright weight-bearing position compared with that in the supine position. Image quality, especially nerve root delineation, is inferior using 3D tomography compared to CT. Key Points • Weight-bearing examination demonstrates a decrease of the neuroforaminal size. • Patients with higher decrease in intervertebral disc showed a narrower foraminal size. • Image quality is superior with CT compared to 3D tomographic twin robotic X-ray at the lumbar 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it