32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Are current machine learning applications comparable to radiologist classification of degenerate and herniated discs and Modic change? A systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Low back pain is the leading contributor to disability burden globally. It is commonly due to degeneration of the lumbar intervertebral discs (LDD). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the current best tool to visualize and diagnose LDD, but places high time demands on clinical radiologists. Automated reading of spine MRIs could improve speed, accuracy, reliability and cost effectiveness in radiology departments. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to determine if current machine learning algorithms perform well identifying disc degeneration, herniation, bulge and Modic change compared to radiologists.

          Methods

          A PRISMA systematic review protocol was developed and four electronic databases and reference lists were searched. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. A PROBAST risk of bias and applicability analysis was performed.

          Results

          1350 articles were extracted. Duplicates were removed and title and abstract searching identified original research articles that used machine learning (ML) algorithms to identify disc degeneration, herniation, bulge and Modic change from MRIs. 27 studies were included in the review; 25 and 14 studies were included multi-variate and bivariate meta-analysis, respectively. Studies used machine learning algorithms to assess LDD, disc herniation, bulge and Modic change. Models using deep learning, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, random forest and naïve Bayes algorithms were included. Meta-analyses found no differences in algorithm or classification performance. When algorithms were tested in replication or external validation studies, they did not perform as well as when assessed in developmental studies. Data augmentation improved algorithm performance when compared to models used with smaller datasets, there were no performance differences between augmented data and large datasets.

          Discussion

          This review highlights several shortcomings of current approaches, including few validation attempts or use of large sample sizes. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first systematic review to explore this topic. We suggest the utilization of deep learning coupled with semi- or unsupervised learning approaches. Use of all information contained in MRI data will improve accuracy. Clear and complete reporting of study design, statistics and results will improve the reliability and quality of published literature.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00586-023-07718-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Non-specific low back pain.

          Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Management guidelines endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious pathology, and so require diagnostic work-up or specialist referral, or both. Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical cause, treatment focuses on reducing pain and its consequences. Management consists of education and reassurance, analgesic medicines, non-pharmacological therapies, and timely review. The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients require little if any formal medical care. Two treatment strategies are currently used, a stepped approach beginning with more simple care that is progressed if the patient does not respond, and the use of simple risk prediction methods to individualise the amount and type of care provided. The overuse of imaging, opioids, and surgery remains a widespread problem.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration.

            A reliability study was conducted. To develop a classification system for lumbar disc degeneration based on routine magnetic resonance imaging, to investigate the applicability of a simple algorithm, and to assess the reliability of this classification system. A standardized nomenclature in the assessment of disc abnormalities is a prerequisite for a comparison of data from different investigations. The reliability of the assessment has a crucial influence on the validity of the data. Grading systems of disc degeneration based on state of the art magnetic resonance imaging and corresponding reproducibility studies currently are sparse. A grading system for lumbar disc degeneration was developed on the basis of the literature. An algorithm to assess the grading was developed and optimized by reviewing lumbar magnetic resonance examinations. The reliability of the algorithm in depicting intervertebral disc alterations was tested on the magnetic resonance images of 300 lumbar intervertebral discs in 60 patients (33 men and 27 women) with a mean age of 40 years (range, 10-83 years). All scans were analyzed independently by three observers. Intra- and interobserver reliabilities were assessed by calculating kappa statistics. There were 14 Grade I, 82 Grade II, 72 Grade III, 68 Grade IV, and 64 Grade V discs. The kappa coefficients for intra- and interobserver agreement were substantial to excellent: intraobserver (kappa range, 0.84-0.90) and interobserver (kappa range, 0.69-0.81). Complete agreement was obtained, on the average, in 83.8% of all the discs. A difference of one grade occurred in 15.9% and a difference of two or more grades in 1.3% of all the cases. Disc degeneration can be graded reliably on routine T2-weighted magnetic resonance images using the grading system and algorithm presented in this investigation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies

              Clinical prediction models combine multiple predictors to estimate risk for the presence of a particular condition (diagnostic models) or the occurrence of a certain event in the future (prognostic models). PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool), a tool for assessing the risk of bias (ROB) and applicability of diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, was developed by a steering group that considered existing ROB tools and reporting guidelines. The tool was informed by a Delphi procedure involving 38 experts and was refined through piloting. PROBAST is organized into the following 4 domains: participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis. These domains contain a total of 20 signaling questions to facilitate structured judgment of ROB, which was defined to occur when shortcomings in study design, conduct, or analysis lead to systematically distorted estimates of model predictive performance. PROBAST enables a focused and transparent approach to assessing the ROB and applicability of studies that develop, validate, or update prediction models for individualized predictions. Although PROBAST was designed for systematic reviews, it can be used more generally in critical appraisal of prediction model studies. Potential users include organizations supporting decision making, researchers and clinicians who are interested in evidence-based medicine or involved in guideline development, journal editors, and manuscript reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                roger.compte@kcl.ac.uk
                isabelle.smith@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Eur Spine J
                Eur Spine J
                European Spine Journal
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0940-6719
                1432-0932
                8 May 2023
                8 May 2023
                : 1-24
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.13097.3c, ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, Department of Twin Research, , King’s College London, St Thomas’ Hospital Campus, 4th Floor South Wing, ; Block D, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.13097.3c, ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, , King’s College London, ; London, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.10858.34, ISNI 0000 0001 0941 4873, Research Unit of Health Sciences and Technology, , University of Oulu, ; Oulu, Finland
                [4 ]Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Services Foundation Trust, London, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7034-1092
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4294-3317
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5827-0562
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5416-7971
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0966-210X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7841-8568
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2998-2744
                Article
                7718
                10.1007/s00586-023-07718-0
                10164619
                37150769
                fc3f8865-b8ab-4219-bb51-5aac9083b22b
                © Crown 2023

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 28 October 2022
                : 8 February 2023
                : 9 April 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100012041, Versus Arthritis;
                Award ID: 22467
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010665, H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions;
                Award ID: MSCA-ITN-ETN-2020 GA: 955735
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review Article

                Orthopedics
                machine learning,mri,ldd,disc herniation,modic change
                Orthopedics
                machine learning, mri, ldd, disc herniation, modic change

                Comments

                Comment on this article