Literature DB >> 34718864

Use of machine learning to select texture features in investigating the effects of axial loading on T2-maps from magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar discs.

Vahid Abdollah1,2, Eric C Parent3, Samin Dolatabadi4, Erica Marr4, Keith Wachowicz5,6, Michele Battié7,8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in texture analysis and machine learning offer new opportunities to improve the application of imaging to intervertebral disc biomechanics. This study employed texture analysis and machine learning on MRIs to investigate the lumbar disc's response to loading.
METHODS: Thirty-five volunteers (30 (SD 11) yrs.) with and without chronic back pain spent 20 min lying in a relaxed unloaded supine position, followed by 20 min loaded in compression, and then 20 min with traction applied. T2-weighted MR images were acquired during the last 5 min of each loading condition. Custom image analysis software was used to segment discs from adjacent tissues semi-automatically and segment each disc into the nucleus, anterior and posterior annulus automatically. A grey-level, co-occurrence matrix with one to four pixels offset in four directions (0°, 45°, 90° and 135°) was then constructed (320 feature/tissue). The Random Forest Algorithm was used to select the most promising classifiers. Linear mixed-effect models and Cohen's d compared loading conditions.
FINDINGS: All statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed in the nucleus and posterior annulus in the 135° offset direction at the L4-5 level between lumbar compression and traction. Correlation (P2-Offset, P4-Offset) and information measure of correlation 1 (P3-Offset, P4-Offset) detected significant changes in the nucleus. Statistically significant changes were also observed for homogeneity (P2-Offset, P3-Offset), contrast (P2-Offset), and difference variance (P4-Offset) of the posterior annulus.
INTERPRETATION: MRI textural features may have the potential of identifying the disc's response to loading, particularly in the nucleus and posterior annulus, which appear most sensitive to loading. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Compression; Intervertebral disc; Machine learning; Texture analysis; Traction

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34718864     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-07036-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   2.721


  32 in total

1.  Lumbar spine disc heights and curvature: upright posture vs. supine compression harness.

Authors:  Shi-Uk Lee; Alan R Hargens; Michael Fredericson; Philipp K Lang
Journal:  Aviat Space Environ Med       Date:  2003-05

2.  Upright, weight-bearing, dynamic-kinetic MRI of the spine: initial results.

Authors:  J Randy Jinkins; Jay S Dworkin; Raymond V Damadian
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Positional MRI changes in supine versus sitting postures in patients with degenerative lumbar spine.

Authors:  Efthimios J Karadimas; Manal Siddiqui; Francis W Smith; Douglas Wardlaw
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2006-10

4.  Postural changes of the dural sac in the lumbar spines of asymptomatic individuals using positional stand-up magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Yoichiro Hirasawa; Waseem A Bashir; Francis W Smith; Marianne L Magnusson; Malcolm H Pope; Keisuke Takahashi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Axial loading during MRI reveals deviant characteristics within posterior IVD regions between low back pain patients and controls.

Authors:  H Hebelka; L Torén; K Lagerstrand; H Brisby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Axial loading during MRI influences T2-mapping values of lumbar discs: a feasibility study on patients with low back pain.

Authors:  Martin Nilsson; K Lagerstrand; I Kasperska; H Brisby; H Hebelka
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Changes in the lumbar spine of athletes from supine to the true-standing position in magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Frieder Mauch; Christian Jung; Jochen Huth; Gerhard Bauer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Dynamic change of dural sac cross-sectional area in axial loaded magnetic resonance imaging correlates with the severity of clinical symptoms in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

Authors:  Haruo Kanno; Hiroshi Ozawa; Yutaka Koizumi; Naoki Morozumi; Toshimi Aizawa; Takashi Kusakabe; Yushin Ishii; Eiji Itoi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  In vivo measurement of lumbar foramen during axial loading using a compression device and computed tomography.

Authors:  Takahiro Iwata; Kei Miyamoto; Akira Hioki; Minoru Ohashi; Nozomu Inoue; Katsuji Shimizu
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2013-07

10.  Development of bone marrow lesions is associated with adverse effects on knee cartilage while resolution is associated with improvement--a potential target for prevention of knee osteoarthritis: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Miranda L Davies-Tuck; Anita E Wluka; Andrew Forbes; Yuanyuan Wang; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; Richard O'Sullivan; Flavia M Cicuttini
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 5.156

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.