MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155650309 · doi:10.2196/14755

Automatically Diagnosing Disk Bulge and Disk Herniation With Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Images by Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks: Method Development Study

2021· article· en· W3155650309 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiong Pan, Kai Zhang, Lin He, Zhou Dong, Lei Zhang, Xiaohang Wu, Yi Wu, Yanjun Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsSagittal planeLumbarMagnetic resonance imagingConvolutional neural networkIntervertebral diskComputer scienceLumbar vertebraeVertebraMedicineBack painRadiologyArtificial intelligenceAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Disk herniation and disk bulge are two common disorders of lumbar intervertebral disks (IVDs) that often result in numbness, pain in the lower limbs, and lower back pain. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is one of the most efficient techniques for detecting lumbar diseases and is widely used for making clinical diagnoses at hospitals. However, there is a lack of efficient tools for effectively interpreting massive amounts of MR images to meet the requirements of many radiologists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to present an automatic system for diagnosing disk bulge and herniation that saves time and can effectively and significantly reduce the workload of radiologists. METHODS: The diagnosis of lumbar vertebral disorders is highly dependent on medical images. Therefore, we chose the two most common diseases-disk bulge and herniation-as research subjects. This study is mainly about identifying the position of IVDs (lumbar vertebra [L] 1 to L2, L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5 to sacral vertebra [S] 1) by analyzing the geometrical relationship between sagittal and axial images and classifying axial lumbar disk MR images via deep convolutional neural networks. RESULTS: This system involved 4 steps. In the first step, it automatically located vertebral bodies (including the L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and S1) in sagittal images by using the faster region-based convolutional neural network, and our fourfold cross-validation showed 100% accuracy. In the second step, it spontaneously identified the corresponding disk in each axial lumbar disk MR image with 100% accuracy. In the third step, the accuracy for automatically locating the intervertebral disk region of interest in axial MR images was 100%. In the fourth step, the 3-class classification (normal disk, disk bulge, and disk herniation) accuracies for the L1-L2, L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 IVDs were 92.7%, 84.4%, 92.1%, 90.4%, and 84.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The automatic diagnosis system was successfully built, and it could classify images of normal disks, disk bulge, and disk herniation. This system provided a web-based test for interpreting lumbar disk MR images that could significantly improve diagnostic efficiency and standardized diagnosis reports. This system can also be used to detect other lumbar abnormalities and cervical spondylosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207