Artificial intelligence for segmentation and classification in lumbar spinal stenosis: an overview of current methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a frequently occurring condition defined by narrowing of the spinal or nerve root canal due to degenerative changes. Physicians use MRI scans to determine the severity of stenosis, occasionally complementing it with X-ray or CT scans during the diagnostic work-up. However, manual grading of stenosis is time-consuming and induces inter-reader variability as a standardized grading system is lacking. Machine Learning (ML) has the potential to aid physicians in this process by automating segmentation and classification of LSS. However, it is unclear what models currently exist to perform these tasks. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed by searching the Cochrane Library, Embase, Emcare, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for studies describing an ML-based algorithm to perform segmentation or classification of the lumbar spine for LSS. Risk of bias was assessed through an adjusted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale that was more applicable to ML studies. Qualitative analyses were performed based on type of algorithm (conventional ML or Deep Learning (DL)) and task (segmentation or classification). RESULTS: A total of 27 articles were included of which nine on segmentation, 16 on classification and 2 on both tasks. The majority of studies focused on algorithms for MRI analysis. There was wide variety among the outcome measures used to express model performance. Overall, ML algorithms are able to perform segmentation and classification tasks excellently. DL methods tend to demonstrate better performance than conventional ML models. For segmentation the best performing DL models were U-Net based. For classification U-Net and unspecified CNNs powered the models that performed the best for the majority of outcome metrics. The number of models with external validation was limited. CONCLUSION: DL models achieve excellent performance for segmentation and classification tasks for LSS, outperforming conventional ML algorithms. However, comparisons between studies are challenging due to the variety in outcome measures and test datasets. Future studies should focus on the segmentation task using DL models and utilize a standardized set of outcome measures and publicly available test dataset to express model performance. In addition, these models need to be externally validated to assess generalizability.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".