MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389219660 · doi:10.1002/jsp2.1301

Thresholding approaches for estimating paraspinal muscle fat infiltration using <scp>T1</scp> ‐ and <scp>T2</scp> ‐weighted <scp>MRI</scp> : Comparative analysis using water–fat <scp>MRI</scp>

2023· article· en· W4389219660 on OpenAlex
Jessica Ornowski, Lucas Dziesinski, Madeline Hess, Roland Krug, Maryse Fortin, Abel Torres‐Espín, Sharmila Majumdar, Valentina Pedoia, Noah B. Bonnheim, Jeannie F. Bailey

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

VenueJOR Spine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of AlbertaConcordia University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingThresholdingLumbarNuclear medicinePattern recognition (psychology)MedicineMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAnatomyComputer scienceRadiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Paraspinal muscle fat infiltration is associated with spinal degeneration and low back pain, however, quantifying muscle fat using clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques continues to be a challenge. Advanced MRI techniques, including chemical‐shift encoding (CSE) based water–fat MRI, enable accurate measurement of muscle fat, but such techniques are not widely available in routine clinical practice. Methods To facilitate assessment of paraspinal muscle fat using clinical imaging, we compared four thresholding approaches for estimating muscle fat fraction (FF) using T1‐ and T2‐weighted images, with measurements from water–fat MRI as the ground truth: Gaussian thresholding, Otsu's method, K‐mean clustering, and quadratic discriminant analysis. Pearson's correlation coefficients ( r ), mean absolute errors, and mean bias errors were calculated for FF estimates from T1‐ and T2‐weighted MRI with water–fat MRI for the lumbar multifidus (MF), erector spinae (ES), quadratus lumborum (QL), and psoas (PS), and for all muscles combined. Results We found that for all muscles combined, FF measurements from T1‐ and T2‐weighted images were strongly positively correlated with measurements from the water–fat images for all thresholding techniques ( r = 0.70–0.86, p &lt; 0.0001) and that variations in inter‐muscle correlation strength were much greater than variations in inter‐method correlation strength. Conclusion We conclude that muscle FF can be quantified using thresholded T1‐ and T2‐weighted MRI images with relatively low bias and absolute error in relation to water–fat MRI, particularly in the MF and ES, and the choice of thresholding technique should depend on the muscle and clinical MRI sequence of interest.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.233 · 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