MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408920614 · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2025.03.012

Normalizing spinal cord compression measures in degenerative cervical myelopathy

2025· article· en· W4408920614 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandrine Bédard, Jan Valošek, Maryam Seif, Armin Curt, Simon Schading‐Sassenhausen, Nikolai Pfender, Patrick Freund, Markus Hupp, Julien Cohen‐Adad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Spine Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsInstitut TransMedTechFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeMinisterstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské RepublikyInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesEuropean CommissionCanada Foundation for InnovationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau en Bio-Imagerie du QuebecCanada First Research Excellence FundCanada Research ChairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWings for LifeKinderspital ZürichBalgrist StiftungCraig H. Neilsen Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathySpinal cord compressionCompression (physics)Spinal Cord DiseasesSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Accurate and automatic MRI measurements are relevant for assessing spinal cord compression severity in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and guiding treatment. The widely-used maximum spinal cord compression (MSCC) index has limitations. Firstly, it normalizes the anteroposterior cord diameter by that above and below the compression but does not account for cord size variation along the superior-inferior axis, making MSCC sensitive to compression level. Secondly, cord shape varies across individuals, making MSCC sensitive to this variability. Thirdly, MSCC is typically calculated by an expert-rater from a single sagittal slice, which is time-consuming and prone to variability. PURPOSE: This study proposes a fully automatic pipeline to compute MSCC. DESIGN: We developed a normalization strategy for traditional MSCC (anteroposterior diameter) using a healthy adults database (n = 203) to address cord anatomy variability across individuals and evaluated additional morphometrics (transverse diameter, area, eccentricity, and solidity). PATIENT SAMPLE: DCM patient cohort of n = 120. OUTCOME MEASURES: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) were used as evaluation metrics. METHODS: We validated the method in a mild DCM patient cohort against manually derived morphometrics and predicted the therapeutic decision (operative/conservative) using a stepwise binary logistic regression incorporating demographics and clinical scores. RESULTS: The automatic and normalized MSCC measures correlated significantly with clinical scores and predicted the therapeutic decision more accurately than manual MSCC. Significant predictors included upper extremity sensory dysfunction, T2w hyperintensity, and the proposed MRI-based measures. The model achieved an area under the curve of 0.80 in receiver operating characteristic analysis. CONCLUSION: This study introduced an automatic method for computing normalized measures of cord compressions from MRIs, potentially improving therapeutic decisions in DCM patients. The method is open-source and available in Spinal Cord Toolbox v6.0 and above.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Spine JournalSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207