The use of deep learning in medical imaging to improve spine care: A scoping review of current literature and clinical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence is a revolutionary technology that promises to assist clinicians in improving patient care. In radiology, deep learning (DL) is widely used in clinical decision aids due to its ability to analyze complex patterns and images. It allows for rapid, enhanced data, and imaging analysis, from diagnosis to outcome prediction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current literature and clinical utilization of DL in spine imaging. Methods: This study is a scoping review and utilized the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to review the scientific literature from 2012 to 2021. A search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embased, and IEEE Xplore databases with syntax specific for DL and medical imaging in spine care applications was conducted to collect all original publications on the subject. Specific data was extracted from the available literature, including algorithm application, algorithms tested, database type and size, algorithm training method, and outcome of interest. Results: A total of 365 studies (total sample of 232,394 patients) were included and grouped into 4 general applications: diagnostic tools, clinical decision support tools, automated clinical/instrumentation assessment, and clinical outcome prediction. Notable disparities exist in the selected algorithms and the training across multiple disparate databases. The most frequently used algorithms were U-Net and ResNet. A DL model was developed and validated in 92% of included studies, while a pre-existing DL model was investigated in 8%. Of all developed models, only 15% of them have been externally validated. Conclusions: Based on this scoping review, DL in spine imaging is used in a broad range of clinical applications, particularly for diagnosing spinal conditions. There is a wide variety of DL algorithms, database characteristics, and training methods. Future studies should focus on external validation of existing models before bringing them into clinical use.
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 | 0.021 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".