Statistical morphological analysis reveals characteristic paraspinal muscle asymmetry in unilateral lumbar disc herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing evidence suggests an association of lumbar paraspinal muscle morphology with low back pain (LBP) and lumbar pathologies. Unilateral spinal disorders provide unique models to study this association, with implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and management. Statistical shape analysis is a technique that can identify signature shape variations related to phenotypes but has never been employed in studying paraspinal muscle morphology. We present the first investigation using this technique to reveal disease-related paraspinal muscle asymmetry, using MRIs of patients with a single posterolateral disc herniation at the L5-S1 spinal level and unilateral leg pain. Statistical shape analysis was conducted to reveal disease- and phenotype-related morphological variations in the multifidus and erector spinae muscles at the level of herniation and the one below. With the analysis, shape variations associated with disc herniation were identified in the multifidus on the painful side at the level below the pathology while no pathology-related asymmetry in cross-sectional area (CSA) and fatty infiltration was found in either muscle. The results demonstrate higher sensitivity and spatial specificity for the technique than typical CSA and fatty infiltration measures. Statistical shape analysis holds promise in studying paraspinal muscle morphology to improve our understanding of LBP and various lumbar pathologies.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".