A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Development and validation of deep learning models for identifying the brand of pedicle screws on plain spine radiographs. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: In spinal revision surgery, previous pedicle screws (PS) may need to be replaced with new implants. Failure to accurately identify the brand of PS-based instrumentation preoperatively may increase the risk of perioperative complications. This study aimed to develop and validate an optimal deep learning (DL) model to identify the brand of PS-based instrumentation on plain radiographs of spine (PRS) using anteroposterior (AP) and lateral images.

Methods: A total of 529 patients who received PS-based instrumentation from seven manufacturers were enrolled in this retrospective study. The postoperative PRS were gathered as ground truths. The training, validation, and testing datasets contained 338, 85, and 106 patients, respectively. YOLOv5 was used to crop out the screws' trajectory, and the EfficientNet-b0 model was used to develop single models (AP, Lateral, Merge, and Concatenated) based on the different PRS images. The ensemble models were different combinations of the single models. Primary outcomes were the models' performance in accuracy, sensitivity, precision, F1-score, kappa value, and area under the curve (AUC). Secondary outcomes were the relative performance of models versus human readers and external validation of the DL models.

Results: The Lateral model had the most stable performance among single models. The discriminative performance was improved by the ensemble method. The AP + Lateral ensemble model had the most stable performance, with an accuracy of 0.9434, F1 score of 0.9388, and AUC of 0.9834. The performance of the ensemble models was comparable to that of experienced orthopedic surgeons and superior to that of inexperienced orthopedic surgeons. External validation revealed that the Lat + Concat ensemble model had the best accuracy (0.9412).

Conclusion: The DL models demonstrated stable performance in identifying the brand of PS-based instrumentation based on AP and/or lateral images of PRS, which may assist orthopedic spine surgeons in preoperative revision planning in clinical practice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11406509PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.70001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ps-based instrumentation
16
brand ps-based
12
single models
12
stable performance
12
deep learning
8
models
8
identifying brand
8
pedicle screws
8
identify brand
8
ensemble models
8

Similar Publications