Alexander L Hornung1, Christopher M Hornung2, G Michael Mallow1, J Nicolas Barajas1, Alejandro A Espinoza Orías1, Fabio Galbusera3, Hans-Joachim Wilke4, Matthew Colman1, Frank M Phillips1, Howard S An1, Dino Samartzis5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 2. University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Center Ulm, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Orthopaedic Building, Suite 204-G, 1611 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. Dino_Samartzis@rush.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As big data and artificial intelligence (AI) in spine care, and medicine as a whole, continue to be at the forefront of research, careful consideration to the quality and techniques utilized is necessary. Predictive modeling, data science, and deep analytics have taken center stage. Within that space, AI and machine learning (ML) approaches toward the use of spine imaging have gathered considerable attention in the past decade. Although several benefits of such applications exist, limitations are also present and need to be considered. PURPOSE: The following narrative review presents the current status of AI, in particular, ML, with special regard to imaging studies, in the field of spinal research. METHODS: A multi-database assessment of the literature was conducted up to September 1, 2021, that addressed AI as it related to imaging of the spine. Articles written in English were selected and critically assessed. RESULTS: Overall, the review discussed the limitations, data quality and applications of ML models in the context of spine imaging. In particular, we addressed the data quality and ML algorithms in spine imaging research by describing preliminary results from a widely accessible imaging algorithm that is currently available for spine specialists to reference for information on severity of spine disease and degeneration which ultimately may alter clinical decision-making. In addition, awareness of the current, under-recognized regulation surrounding the execution of ML for spine imaging was raised. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations were provided for conducting high-quality, standardized AI applications for spine imaging.
BACKGROUND: As big data and artificial intelligence (AI) in spine care, and medicine as a whole, continue to be at the forefront of research, careful consideration to the quality and techniques utilized is necessary. Predictive modeling, data science, and deep analytics have taken center stage. Within that space, AI and machine learning (ML) approaches toward the use of spine imaging have gathered considerable attention in the past decade. Although several benefits of such applications exist, limitations are also present and need to be considered. PURPOSE: The following narrative review presents the current status of AI, in particular, ML, with special regard to imaging studies, in the field of spinal research. METHODS: A multi-database assessment of the literature was conducted up to September 1, 2021, that addressed AI as it related to imaging of the spine. Articles written in English were selected and critically assessed. RESULTS: Overall, the review discussed the limitations, data quality and applications of ML models in the context of spine imaging. In particular, we addressed the data quality and ML algorithms in spine imaging research by describing preliminary results from a widely accessible imaging algorithm that is currently available for spine specialists to reference for information on severity of spine disease and degeneration which ultimately may alter clinical decision-making. In addition, awareness of the current, under-recognized regulation surrounding the execution of ML for spine imaging was raised. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations were provided for conducting high-quality, standardized AI applications for spine imaging.
Authors: Vladimir Golkov; Alexey Dosovitskiy; Jonathan I Sperl; Marion I Menzel; Michael Czisch; Philipp Samann; Thomas Brox; Daniel Cremers Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Amir Jamaludin; Jeremy Fairbank; Ian Harding; Timor Kadir; Tim J Peters; Andrew Zisserman; Emma M Clark Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 4.333