» Articles » PMID: 39483709

Role of Artificial Intelligence Model in Prediction of Low Back Pain Using T2 Weighted MRI of Lumbar Spine

Overview
Journal F1000Res
Date 2024 Nov 1
PMID 39483709
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Low back pain (LBP), the primary cause of disability, is the most common musculoskeletal disorder globally and the primary cause of disability. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are inconclusive and less sensitive for identifying and classifying patients with LBP. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the role of artificial intelligence (AI) models in the prediction of LBP using T2 weighted MRI image of the lumbar spine.

Methods: This was a prospective case-control study. A total of 200 MRI patients (100 cases and controls each) referred for lumbar spine and whole spine screening were included. The scans were performed using 3.0 Tesla MRI (United Imaging Healthcare). T2 weighted images of the lumbar spine were segmented to extract radiomic features. Machine learning (ML) models, such as random forest, decision tree, logistic regression, K-nearest neighbors, adaboost, and deep learning methods (DL), such as ResNet and GoogleNet, were used, and performance measures were calculated.

Results: Our study showed that Random forest and AdaBoost are the most reliable ML models for predicting LBP. Random forest showed high performance with area under curve (AUC) values from 0.83 to 0.88 across all lumbar vertebrae and L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 intervertebral discs (IVDs), with AUCs of 0.88 the highest at L5-S1 IVD (0.92). Adaboost demonstrated high performance at the L2-L5 vertebrae with AUC values of 0.82 to 0.90, with the highest AUC (0.97) at the L5-S1 IVD. Among the DL models, GoogleNet outperformed the other models at 30 epochs with an accuracy of 0.85, followed by ResNet 18 (30 epochs) with an accuracy of 0.84.

Conclusion: The study demonstrated that ML and DL models can effectively predict LBP from MRI T2 weighted image of the lumbar spine. ML and DL models could also enhance the diagnostic accuracy of LBP, potentially leading to better patient management and outcomes.

Citing Articles

Comparison of sagittal measurements of cervical spine in spondylosis patients between Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Radiograph.

Nicolet M, - P, Kadavigere R, S Nayak S, Pendem S, Aggarwal S F1000Res. 2025; 14:45.

PMID: 39917310 PMC: 11799758. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.159504.1.


Applications of MR Finger printing derived T1 and T2 values in Adult brain: A Systematic review.

Mohamed Sajer R, Pendem S, Kadavigere R, - P, Nayak S S, Nayak K F1000Res. 2025; 14():54.

PMID: 39839989 PMC: 11747303. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.160088.1.

References
1.
Bi W, Hosny A, Schabath M, Giger M, Birkbak N, Mehrtash A . Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69(2):127-157. PMC: 6403009. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21552. View

2.
Auffermann W, Gozansky E, Tridandapani S . Artificial Intelligence in Cardiothoracic Radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212(5):997-1001. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20771. View

3.
Thrall J, Li X, Li Q, Cruz C, Do S, Dreyer K . Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Radiology: Opportunities, Challenges, Pitfalls, and Criteria for Success. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15(3 Pt B):504-508. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.12.026. View

4.
Hood L, Friend S . Predictive, personalized, preventive, participatory (P4) cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011; 8(3):184-7. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.227. View

5.
Erickson B, Korfiatis P, Akkus Z, Kline T . Machine Learning for Medical Imaging. Radiographics. 2017; 37(2):505-515. PMC: 5375621. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2017160130. View