4.8 Article

Deep learning-based high-accuracy quantitation for lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration from MRI

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28387-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2020YFE0201600]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81930116, 81804115, 81873317, 81730107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low back pain has been a leading cause of disability worldwide. This study proposes a segmentation network and a quantitative method for evaluating lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. The technique can accurately assess the severity of low back pain and provide more precise information.
Globally, as a major public health problem, low back pain has been the leading cause of disability worldwide for the past 30 years. Here, the authors propose a segmentation network and a quantitative method lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration assessment. To help doctors and patients evaluate lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) accurately and efficiently, we propose a segmentation network and a quantitation method for IVDD from T2MRI. A semantic segmentation network (BianqueNet) composed of three innovative modules achieves high-precision segmentation of IVDD-related regions. A quantitative method is used to calculate the signal intensity and geometric features of IVDD. Manual measurements have excellent agreement with automatic calculations, but the latter have better repeatability and efficiency. We investigate the relationship between IVDD parameters and demographic information (age, gender, position and IVDD grade) in a large population. Considering these parameters present strong correlation with IVDD grade, we establish a quantitative criterion for IVDD. This fully automated quantitation system for IVDD may provide more precise information for clinical practice, clinical trials, and mechanism investigation. It also would increase the number of patients that can be monitored.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据