Manoj Mannil1, Jakob M Burgstaller2, Ulrike Held2, Mazda Farshad3, Roman Guggenberger4. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Horten Centre for Patient Oriented Research and Knowledge Transfer, University of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. roman.guggenberger@usz.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to apply texture analysis (TA) on paraspinal musculature in T2-weighted (T2w) magnetic resonance images (MRI) of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients and correlate the findings with clinical outcome measures. METHODS: Ninety patients were prospectively enrolled in the multi-centric Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS). All patients received a T2w MRI, from which we selected axial images perpendicular to the intervertebral disc at level L3/4 for TA. Regions-of-interest (ROI) were drawn of the paraspinal musculature and 304 TA features/ ROI were calculated. As clinical outcome measurements, we analysed three commonly applied measures: Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), as well as the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). We used two machine learning-based classifiers: Decision table, and k-nearest neighbours (k-NN). RESULTS: We observed no meaningful correlation between TA in paraspinal musculature and the two clinical outcome measures SSM symptoms and SSM function, while a moderate correlation was observed regarding the outcome measures RMDQ (k-NN: r = 0.56) and NRS (Decision Table: r = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, MR TA is a viable tool to quantify medical images and illustrate correlations of microarchitectural changes invisible to a human reader with potential clinical impact. KEY POINTS: • TA is feasible on paraspinal musculature using MRI. • TA on paraspinal musculature correlates with SSM and RMDQ. • TA may enable a statement regarding clinical impact of imaging findings.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to apply texture analysis (TA) on paraspinal musculature in T2-weighted (T2w) magnetic resonance images (MRI) of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients and correlate the findings with clinical outcome measures. METHODS: Ninety patients were prospectively enrolled in the multi-centric Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS). All patients received a T2w MRI, from which we selected axial images perpendicular to the intervertebral disc at level L3/4 for TA. Regions-of-interest (ROI) were drawn of the paraspinal musculature and 304 TA features/ ROI were calculated. As clinical outcome measurements, we analysed three commonly applied measures: Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), as well as the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). We used two machine learning-based classifiers: Decision table, and k-nearest neighbours (k-NN). RESULTS: We observed no meaningful correlation between TA in paraspinal musculature and the two clinical outcome measures SSM symptoms and SSM function, while a moderate correlation was observed regarding the outcome measures RMDQ (k-NN: r = 0.56) and NRS (Decision Table: r = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, MR TA is a viable tool to quantify medical images and illustrate correlations of microarchitectural changes invisible to a human reader with potential clinical impact. KEY POINTS: • TA is feasible on paraspinal musculature using MRI. • TA on paraspinal musculature correlates with SSM and RMDQ. • TA may enable a statement regarding clinical impact of imaging findings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Machine learning; Magnetic resonance imaging; Muscles; Spine
Authors: O Airaksinen; J I Brox; C Cedraschi; J Hildebrandt; J Klaber-Moffett; F Kovacs; A F Mannion; S Reis; J B Staal; H Ursin; G Zanoli Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Piotr M Szczypiński; Michał Strzelecki; Andrzej Materka; Artur Klepaczko Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ville Leinonen; Sara Määttä; Simo Taimela; Arto Herno; Markku Kankaanpää; Juhani Partanen; Osmo Hänninen; Olavi Airaksinen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Ville Leinonen; Sara Määttä; Simo Taimela; Arto Herno; Markku Kankaanpää; Juhani Partanen; Martti Kansanen; Osmo Hänninen; Olavi Airaksinen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Hasan Banitalebi; Jørn Aaen; Kjersti Storheim; Anne Negård; Tor Åge Myklebust; Margreth Grotle; Christian Hellum; Ansgar Espeland; Masoud Anvar; Kari Indrekvam; Clemens Weber; Jens Ivar Brox; Helena Brisby; Erland Hermansen Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2022-07-20
Authors: Alexander L Hornung; Christopher M Hornung; G Michael Mallow; J Nicolás Barajas; Augustus Rush; Arash J Sayari; Fabio Galbusera; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Matthew Colman; Frank M Phillips; Howard S An; Dino Samartzis Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-03-27 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Michael Dieckmeyer; Stephanie Inhuber; Sarah Schlaeger; Dominik Weidlich; Muthu Rama Krishnan Mookiah; Karupppasamy Subburaj; Egon Burian; Nico Sollmann; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Thomas Baum Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-02-04
Authors: Elisabeth Sartoretti; Thomas Sartoretti; Michael Wyss; Carolin Reischauer; Luuk van Smoorenburg; Christoph A Binkert; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer; Manoj Mannil Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Michael Dieckmeyer; Nico Sollmann; Malek El Husseini; Anjany Sekuboyina; Maximilian T Löffler; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke; Karupppasamy Subburaj; Thomas Baum Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 5.555