| Literature DB >> 32677567 |
Brian H Cho1,2, Deepak Kaji1,2, Zoe B Cheung1, Ivan B Ye1, Ray Tang1, Amy Ahn1, Oscar Carrillo1, John T Schwartz1, Aly A Valliani1, Eric K Oermann1, Varun Arvind1, Daniel Ranti1, Li Sun1, Jun S Kim1, Samuel K Cho1.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Keywords: angle measurement; artificial intelligence; computer-assisted; lordosis; lumbar; machine learning; neural networks; radiographic image interpretation; radiography; sagittal balance; spinopelvic parameters
Year: 2019 PMID: 32677567 PMCID: PMC7359685 DOI: 10.1177/2192568219868190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Global Spine J ISSN: 2192-5682
Figure 1.Example of a raw radiograph and its corresponding manually generated binary mask.
Figure 2.Overview of data workflow for training and testing the U-Net. Augmentation involved flips, random rotations, and random zooms. Each dataset was randomized prior to splitting.
Figure 3.Overview of algorithm workflow for automatic lumbar lordosis angle calculation. (A) The raw radiograph is captured and preprocessed. Bony segmentation is generated from the raw radiograph with the trained U-Net. The L1 and S1 slopes are identified from the segmented image with a computer vision algorithm. (B) Overlay of the L1 and S1 slopes on the raw radiograph demonstrates proper slope placement and accurate angle estimation.
Figure 4.Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of the U-Net for the test dataset. The overall test area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.914 and the overall test accuracy was 0.862. The dotted line denotes AUC = 0.50.
Absolute Angle Difference Performance Metrics.
| Operator | Minimum | Q1 | Median | Mean | Q3 | Maximum | SD |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative to gold standard (deg) | ||||||||
| Algorithm | 0.668 | 3.810 | 6.965 | 13.441 | 21.857 | 50.528 | 12.989 | 0.161 |
| Surgeon 1 | 0.300 | 1.762 | 4.050 | 4.474 | 6.650 | 14.000 | 3.232 | 0.224 |
| Surgeon 2 | 0.100 | 1.375 | 3.050 | 3.529 | 4.825 | 18.400 | 3.152 | 0.460 |
| Relative to overall surgeon average (deg) | ||||||||
| Algorithm | 0.187 | 3.815 | 8.055 | 13.069 | 19.834 | 54.395 | 13.126 | 0.372 |
a P values computed using Welch’s 2-sample t test.
Figure 5.Sorted bar plot of predicted angle error compared to the gold standard measurements (n = 42). The algorithm overestimated in 26 radiographs and underestimated in 16 radiographs.
Figure 6.Box-whisker plot of absolute angle difference for radiographs with 6 and 7+ vertebral bodies segmented.
Figure 7.Examples of U-Net segmentation failures. (A) Image and corresponding segmentation characterized by L1 segmentation failure. (B) Image and corresponding segmentation characterized by fused L2 and L3 vertebrae.
Figure 8.Computer-generated visualizations of end plate location and angle measurement for accurate and inaccurate algorithm measurements. (A) Accurate algorithm measurements corresponding to gold standard measurements of 61.1° (left) and 32.8° (right). (B) Inaccurate algorithm measurements corresponding to gold standard measurements of 37.7° (left) and 66.4° (right).