Texture analysis in the classification of T<sub>2</sub>‐weighted magnetic resonance images in persons with and without low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging findings often do not distinguish between people with and without low back pain (LBP). However, there are still a large number of people who undergo magnetic resonance imaging to help determine the etiology of their back pain. Texture analysis shows promise for the classification of tissues that look similar, and machine learning can minimize the number of comparisons. This study aimed to determine if texture features from lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging differ between people with and without LBP. In total, 14 participants with chronic LBP were matched for age, weight, and gender with 14 healthy volunteers. A custom texture analysis software was used to construct a gray-level co-occurrence matrix with one to four pixels offset in 0° direction for the disc and superior and inferior endplate regions. The Random Forests Algorithm was used to select the most promising classifiers. The linear mixed-effect model analysis was used to compare groups (pain vs. pain-free) at each level controlling for age. The Random Forest Algorithm recommended focusing on intervertebral discs and endplate zones at L4-5 and L5-S1. Differences were observed between groups for L5-S1 superior endplate contrast, homogeneity, and energy (p = .02). Differences were observed for L5-S1 disc contrast and homogeneity (p < .01), as well as for the inferior endplates contrast, homogeneity, and energy (p < .03). Magnetic resonance imaging textural features may have potential in identifying structures that may be the target of further investigations about the reasons for LBP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".