MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413972071 · doi:10.3171/2025.4.spine241473

Utility of the vertebral bone quality score to predict complications after spine surgery: a systematic review

2025· article· en· W4413972071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob D. Greisman, Esteban Quiceno, Mohamed A. R. Soliman, Raphael Bastianon Santiago, Asham Khan, Jeffrey P. Mullin, John Pollina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSPINE (molecular biology)SurgerySystematic reviewSpinal surgeryMEDLINEBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score has emerged as a safe, convenient alternative to dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and CT for preoperative bone health assessment, which correlates with the outcomes of spine surgery. In this study, the authors aimed to systematically review the literature characterizing the utility of the VBQ score in predicting postoperative complications to inform operative planning and patient management. METHODS: This systematic review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42024542755) and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for all original research published between January 1, 2020, and May 20, 2024, that had analyzed the VBQ score as a predictor of postoperative complications following spine surgery including pedicle screw loosening (PSL), cage subsidence (CS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) or proximal junctional failure (PJF), distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) or distal junctional failure (DJF), vertebral refracture, and need for reoperation. Applications of the VBQ score and its derivatives were characterized across methods, demographics, and outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for study quality assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies comprising 4068 patients, 60.5% of whom were female, with a mean age of 58.5 ± 17.0 years were eligible for study inclusion. Sixteen studies used the traditional VBQ score calculation (L1-4/L3); alternatives included C3-6/C2 (5 studies), C3-6/C5 (1 study), L1-5/L3 (1 study), L4-5/L3 (1 study), and S1/L3 (3 studies). The VBQ score significantly predicted PSL (ranges: thresholds 2.9-3.175, areas under the curve [AUCs] 0.72-0.77, ORs 1.02-5.778), CS (thresholds 2.68-4.10, AUCs 0.785-0.99, ORs 1.513-23.158), ASD (thresholds 2.91-2.95, AUCs 0.934-0.963, ORs 1.509-1.601), PJK or PJF (thresholds 2.715-3.205, AUCs 0.721-0.943, ORs 1.745-26.49), DJK or DJF (threshold 2.66, AUC 0.935, OR 1.46), refracture (combined T1- and T2-weighted VBQ nomogram threshold 0.73, and ratio of adjacent to injured vertebral levels VBQ score < 1.4; AUCs 0.753-0.838, ORs 0.32-2.239), and reoperation (threshold 2.6 to > 3, AUCs 0.702-0.808, ORs 1.569-2.096). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggested that the VBQ score serves as a safe, convenient measure to predict complications after spine surgery. The lowest thresholds reported across all complications were 2.66 in the cervical spine and 2.6 in the lumbar spine, which may serve as rough cutoffs for prompting further patient testing. However, methodological heterogeneity limits guideline development. Future research with consistent methodology is necessary. Systematic review registration no.: CRD42024542755 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207