Search

Objective: To evaluate the impact of deep learning (DL) reconstruction in enhancing image quality and nerve conspicuity in LSP MRN using DESS sequences. Additionally, a geometric image combination (GIC) method to improve DESS signals' combination was proposed. Materials and methods: Adult patients undergoing 3.0 Tesla LSP MRN with DESS were prospectively enrolled. The 3D DESS echoes were separately reconstructed with and without DL and DL-GIC combined reconstructions. In a subset of patients, 3D T2-weighted short tau inversion recovery (STIR-T2w) sequences were also acquired. Three radiologists rated 4 image stacks ('DESS S2', 'DESS S2 DL', 'DESS GIC DL' and 'STIR-T2w DL') for bulk motion, vascular suppression, nerve fascicular architecture, and overall nerve conspicuity. Relative SNR, nerve-to-muscle, -fat, and -vessel contrast ratios were measured. Statistical analysis included ANOVA and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Forty patients (22 females; mean age = 48.6 ± 18.5 years) were enrolled. Quantitatively, 'DESS GIC DL' demonstrated superior relative SNR (p < 0.001), while 'DESS S2 DL' exhibited superior nerve-to-background contrast ratio (p value range: 0.002 to < 0.001). Qualitatively, DESS provided superior vascular suppression and depiction of sciatic nerve fascicular architecture but more bulk motion as compared to 'STIR-T2w DL'. 'DESS GIC DL' demonstrated better nerve visualization for several smaller, distal nerve segments than 'DESS S2 DL' and 'STIR-T2w DL'. Conclusion: Application of a DL reconstruction with geometric image combination in DESS MRN improves nerve conspicuity of the LSP, especially for its smaller branch nerves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantification of forest resilience will help us to manage the sustainability of the forest environment and the safety of biodiversity. Measuring forest resilience is crucial for ensuring long-term health of the forest ecosystem in the face of ongoing environmental changes and disturbances. This study focuses on providing a framework to estimate forest resilience scores to assess the vegetation condition after a disturbance. The resilience calculation framework provided uses number of recovery days, the phenological performance level of vegetation in the year when the disturbance took place, long-term mean phenological performance, and greenness levels in subsequent year to calculate the final resilience score at each pixel. Recovery of forests using Landsat data with the help of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index or Normalized Burn Ratio poses a challenge for continuous monitoring of forested landscapes due to cloud cover and availability of scenes at continuous intervals in Landsat datasets. In this regard, MODIS 16-day EVI products were used in this study (2001 to 2020) for monitoring vegetation health before, during, and after the disaster. Bandhavgarh National Park (BNP) located in Madhya Pradesh, India is considered for this study as it witnessed major forest fire breakouts in the second half of March 2018. The objectives of the study are the following: (1) to estimate post-fire recovery days and (2) to formulate new resilience index. The study revealed that the northern part of BNP is more vulnerable and shows slow recovery. The relationship between occupation of people living inside and in the neighboring area with forest resilience is also investigated in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years).This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts.233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference.Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.Methods: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years).This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts.233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference.Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.Results: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years).This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts.233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference.Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.Conclusions: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years).This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts.233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference.Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]