MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393160424 · doi:10.1186/s13018-024-04654-7

Landet: an efficient physics-informed deep learning approach for automatic detection of anatomical landmarks and measurement of spinopelvic alignment

2024· article· en· W4393160424 on OpenAlexafffund
AliAsghar MohammadiNasrabadi, Gemah Moammer, Ahmed Quateen, Kunal Bhanot, John McPhee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGrand River HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmCorrelation coefficientPelvic tiltComputer scienceSagittal planeMedicineMachine learningAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: An efficient physics-informed deep learning approach for extracting spinopelvic measures from X-ray images is introduced and its performance is evaluated against manual annotations. Methods: Two datasets, comprising a total of 1470 images, were collected to evaluate the model’s performance. We propose a novel method of detecting landmarks as objects, incorporating their relationships as constraints ( LanDet ). Using this approach, we trained our deep learning model to extract five spine and pelvis measures: Sacrum Slope (SS), Pelvic Tilt (PT), Pelvic Incidence (PI), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), and Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA). The results were compared to manually labelled test dataset (GT) as well as measures annotated separately by three surgeons. Results: The LanDet model was evaluated on the two datasets separately and on an extended dataset combining both. The final accuracy for each measure is reported in terms of Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Standard Deviation (SD), and R Pearson correlation coefficient as follows: $$[SS^\circ : 3.7 (2.7), R = 0.89]$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>[</mml:mo> <mml:mi>S</mml:mi> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>S</mml:mi> <mml:mo>∘</mml:mo> </mml:msup> <mml:mo>:</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3.7</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2.7</mml:mn> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.89</mml:mn> <mml:mo>]</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , $$[PT^\circ : 1.3 (1.1), R = 0.98], [PI^\circ : 4.2 (3.1), R = 0.93], [LL^\circ : 5.1 (6.4), R=0.83], [SVA(mm): 2.1 (1.9), R = 0.96]$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>[</mml:mo> <mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi> <mml:mo>∘</mml:mo> </mml:msup> <mml:mo>:</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.3</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.98</mml:mn> <mml:mo>]</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>[</mml:mo> <mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>I</mml:mi> <mml:mo>∘</mml:mo> </mml:msup> <mml:mo>:</mml:mo> <mml:mn>4.2</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3.1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.93</mml:mn> <mml:mo>]</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>[</mml:mo> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>L</mml:mi> <mml:mo>∘</mml:mo> </mml:msup> <mml:mo>:</mml:mo> <mml:mn>5.1</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>6.4</mml:mn> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.83</mml:mn> <mml:mo>]</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>[</mml:mo> <mml:mi>S</mml:mi> <mml:mi>V</mml:mi> <mml:mi>A</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mi>m</mml:mi> <mml:mi>m</mml:mi> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>:</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2.1</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.9</mml:mn> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.96</mml:mn> <mml:mo>]</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . To assess model reliability and compare it against surgeons, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) metric is used. The model demonstrated better consistency with surgeons with all values over 0.88 compared to what was previously reported in the literature. Conclusion: The LanDet model exhibits competitive performance compared to existing literature. The effectiveness of the physics-informed constraint method, utilized in our landmark detection as object algorithm, is highlighted. Furthermore, we addressed the limitations of heatmap-based methods for anatomical landmark detection and tackled issues related to mis-identifying of similar or adjacent landmarks instead of intended landmark using this novel approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and ResearchSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207