MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280544234 · doi:10.1055/a-1770-4626

Imaging of the Osteoporotic Spine – Quantitative Approaches in Diagnostics and for the Prediction of the Individual Fracture Risk

2022· article· en· W4280544234 on OpenAlex
Nico Sollmann, Jan S. Kirschke, Sophia Kronthaler, Christof Boehm, Michael Dieckmeyer, Daniel Vogele, Christopher Kloth, Christoph Gerhard Lisson, Julio Carballido‐Gamio, Thomas M. Link, Dimitrios C. Karampinos, Karupppasamy Subburaj, Meinrad Beer, Roland Krug, Thomas Baum

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

VenueRöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftB. Braun-Stiftung
KeywordsOsteoporosisMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineRadiologyBone mineralMedical imagingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent systemic skeletal disease that is characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural bone deterioration. It predisposes to fragility fractures that can occur at various sites of the skeleton, but vertebral fractures (VFs) have been shown to be particularly common. Prevention strategies and timely intervention depend on reliable diagnosis and prediction of the individual fracture risk, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has been the reference standard for decades. Yet, DXA has its inherent limitations, and other techniques have shown potential as viable add-on or even stand-alone options. Specifically, three-dimensional (3 D) imaging modalities, such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are playing an increasing role. For CT, recent advances in medical image analysis now allow automatic vertebral segmentation and value extraction from single vertebral bodies using a deep-learning-based architecture that can be implemented in clinical practice. Regarding MRI, a variety of methods have been developed over recent years, including magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and chemical shift encoding-based water-fat MRI (CSE-MRI) that enable the extraction of a vertebral body's proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as a promising surrogate biomarker of bone health. Yet, imaging data from CT or MRI may be more efficiently used when combined with advanced analysis techniques such as texture analysis (TA; to provide spatially resolved assessments of vertebral body composition) or finite element analysis (FEA; to provide estimates of bone strength) to further improve fracture prediction. However, distinct and experimentally validated diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis based on CT- and MRI-derived measures have not yet been achieved, limiting broad transfer to clinical practice for these novel approaches. KEY POINTS:: · DXA is the reference standard for diagnosis and fracture prediction in osteoporosis, but it has important limitations.. · CT- and MRI-based methods are increasingly used as (opportunistic) approaches.. · For CT, particularly deep-learning-based automatic vertebral segmentation and value extraction seem promising.. · For MRI, multiple techniques including spectroscopy and chemical shift imaging are available to extract fat fractions.. · Texture and finite element analyses can provide additional measures for vertebral body composition and bone strength.. CITATION FORMAT: · Sollmann N, Kirschke JS, Kronthaler S et al. Imaging of the Osteoporotic Spine - Quantitative Approaches in Diagnostics and for the Prediction of the Individual Fracture Risk. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 1088 - 1099.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.249 · 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