Spine deformity · 2025
Artificial intelligence automated measurements of spinopelvic parameters in adult spinal deformity-a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bishara Anthony, Patel Saarang, Warman Anmol, Jo Jacob, Hughes Liam P, Khalifeh Jawad M, Azad Tej D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This review evaluates advances made in deep learning (DL) applications to automatic spinopelvic parameter estimation, comparing their accuracy to manual measurements performed by surgeons.
METHODS: The PubMed database was queried for studies on DL measurement of adult spinopelvic parameters between 2014 and 2024. Studies were excluded if they focused on pediatric patients, non-deformity-related conditions, non-human subjects, or if they lacked sufficient quantitative data comparing DL models to human measurements. Included studies were assessed based on model architecture, patient demographics, training, validation, testing methods, and sample sizes, as well as performance compared to manual methods.
RESULTS: Of 442 screened articles, 16 were included, with sample sizes ranging from 15 to 9,832 radiograph images and reporting interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.56 to 1.00. Measurements of pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, T4-T12 kyphosis, L1-L4 lordosis, and SVA showed consistently high ICCs (>0.80) and low mean absolute deviations (MADs <6°), with substantial number of studies reporting pelvic tilt achieving an excellent ICC of 0.90 or greater. In contrast, T1-T12 kyphosis and L4-S1 lordosis exhibited lower ICCs and higher measurement errors. Overall, most DL models demonstrated strong correlations (>0.80) with clinician measurements and minimal differences compared to manual references, except for T1-T12 kyphosis (average Pearson correlation: 0.68), L1-L4 lordosis (average Pearson correlation: 0.75), and L4-S1 lordosis (average Pearson correlation: 0.65).
CONCLUSION: Novel computer vision algorithms show promising accuracy in measuring spinopelvic parameters, comparable to manual surgeon measurements. Future research should focus on external validation, additional imaging modalities, and the feasibility of integration in clinical settings to assess model reliability and predictive capacity.
METHODS: The PubMed database was queried for studies on DL measurement of adult spinopelvic parameters between 2014 and 2024. Studies were excluded if they focused on pediatric patients, non-deformity-related conditions, non-human subjects, or if they lacked sufficient quantitative data comparing DL models to human measurements. Included studies were assessed based on model architecture, patient demographics, training, validation, testing methods, and sample sizes, as well as performance compared to manual methods.
RESULTS: Of 442 screened articles, 16 were included, with sample sizes ranging from 15 to 9,832 radiograph images and reporting interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.56 to 1.00. Measurements of pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, T4-T12 kyphosis, L1-L4 lordosis, and SVA showed consistently high ICCs (>0.80) and low mean absolute deviations (MADs <6°), with substantial number of studies reporting pelvic tilt achieving an excellent ICC of 0.90 or greater. In contrast, T1-T12 kyphosis and L4-S1 lordosis exhibited lower ICCs and higher measurement errors. Overall, most DL models demonstrated strong correlations (>0.80) with clinician measurements and minimal differences compared to manual references, except for T1-T12 kyphosis (average Pearson correlation: 0.68), L1-L4 lordosis (average Pearson correlation: 0.75), and L4-S1 lordosis (average Pearson correlation: 0.65).
CONCLUSION: Novel computer vision algorithms show promising accuracy in measuring spinopelvic parameters, comparable to manual surgeon measurements. Future research should focus on external validation, additional imaging modalities, and the feasibility of integration in clinical settings to assess model reliability and predictive capacity.