Comparison of paraspinal muscle composition measurements using IDEAL fat–water and T2-weighted MR images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between paraspinal muscle composition measurements obtained from fat-water images using % fat-signal fraction (%FSF) in comparison to those obtained from T2-weighted magnetic resonance images (MRI) using a thresholding method. METHODS: A sample of 35 subjects (19 females, 16 males; 40.26 ± 11.3 years old) was selected from a cohort of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Axial T2-weighted and IDEAL (Lava-Flex, 2 echo sequence) fat and water MR images were obtained using a 3.0 Tesla GE scanner. Multifidus, erector spinae, and psoas major muscle composition measurements were acquired bilaterally at L4-L5 and L5-S1 using both imaging sequences and related measurement methods. All measurements were obtained by the same rater, with a minimum of 7 days between each method. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess intra-rater reliability. Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were used to assess the agreement between both measurement methods. RESULTS: The intra-rater reliability was excellent for all measurements with ICCs varying between 0.851 and 0.997. Strong positive correlations indicating a strong relationship between composition measurements were obtained from fat-water and T2-weighted images for bilateral multifidus and erector spinae muscles at both spinal levels and the right psoas major muscle at L4-L5, with correlation coefficient r ranging between 0.67 and 0.92. Bland-Altman plots for bilateral multifidus and erector spinae muscles at both levels revealed excellent agreement between the two methods, however, systematic differences between both methods were evident for psoas major fat measurements. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that utilizing fat-water and T2-weighted MR images are comparable for quantifying multifidus and erector spinae muscle composition but not of the psoas major. While this suggests that both methods could be used interchangeably for the multifidus and erector spinae, further evaluation is required to expand and confirm our findings to other spinal levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".