MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411917544 · doi:10.26603/001c.140889

Validity & Reliability of Using Musculoskeletal Ultrasound to Measure Cervical Disc Height

2025· article· en· W4411917544 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Thompson, Jean‐Michel Brismée, Phil Page, Troy L. Hooper, Kathleen Garcia, Stéphane Sobczak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Physical Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingUltrasoundIntervertebral discStandard errorReliability (semiconductor)Nuclear medicinePhysical therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cervical intervertebral disc (IVD) height can be used to indirectly measure of IVD hydration status. Intervertebral disc dehydration results in height loss, which can contribute to degenerative disc disease. There is need for in situ cervical IVD ultrasound assessment to better understand spinal health. Purpose: To determine reliability and validity of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSU) as a tool to measure cervical IVD height compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7 spinal segments. Study Design: Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study. Methods: This three-phase study enrolled 40 participants. Over the course of the study, 900 measurements of IVD were taken. Ten subjects participated in cervical spine MRI and MSU imaging to determine inter-rater reliability for cervical IVD height measurements. Twenty subjects underwent MRI and MSU to obtain images for measurement comparison and Bland-Altman Analysis assessed agreement between MSU and MRI (α=.05) for validity. Randomized, blinded, repeated-measures design using mean values was used to determine inter-rater reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,3)) and standard error of measurement (SEM) at each IVD segment. Results: Anterior cervical IVD height of MRI and MSU were ≥0.91(95%CI=0.66-0.98) and ≥0.68(95%CI=0.27-0.92), respectively. Musculoskeletal ultrasound measurement's SEM between raters was comparable to MRI at ≤0.43mm (7.9%). No significant differences nor proportional bias between MRI and MSU measurements (p<0.05) were found at any IVD spinal level, r(18)=0.83, p<0.01. Average underestimation of MSU measurements compared to MRI was ≤ -0.10mm (2.2%). Conclusion: Methodology used for MSU cervical IVD height imaging and measurements was found to be moderately to highly reliable. Comparisons measurements between MRI and MSU support the use of MSU to measure cervical IVD height in future investigations, including variables which may affect the IVD hydration and homeostasis. Level of evidence: I 3.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sports Physical TherapySame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207