Search

Abstract Spinal magnetic resonance (MR) scans are a vital tool for diagnosing the cause of back pain for many diseases and conditions. However, interpreting clinically useful information from these scans can be challenging, time-consuming and hard to reproduce across different radiologists. In this paper, we alleviate these problems by introducing a multi-stage automated pipeline for analysing spinal MR scans. This pipeline first detects and labels vertebral bodies across several commonly used sequences (e.g. T1w, T2w and STIR) and fields of view (e.g. lumbar, cervical, whole spine). Using these detections it then performs automated diagnosis for several spinal disorders, including intervertebral disc degenerative changes in T1w and T2w lumbar scans, and spinal metastases, cord compression and vertebral fractures. To achieve this, we propose a new method of vertebrae detection and labelling, using vector fields to group together detected vertebral landmarks and a language-modelling inspired beam search to determine the corresponding levels of the detections. We also employ a new transformer-based architecture to perform radiological grading which incorporates context from multiple vertebrae and sequences, as a real radiologist would. The performance of each stage of the pipeline is tested in isolation on several clinical datasets, each consisting of 66 to 421 scans. The outputs are compared to manual annotations of expert radiologists, demonstrating accurate vertebrae detection across a range of scan parameters. Similarly, the model’s grading predictions for various types of disc degeneration and detection of spinal metastases closely match those of an expert radiologist. To aid future research, our code and trained models are made publicly available.

Clinical data sharing can facilitate data-driven scientific research, allowing a broader range of questions to be addressed and thereby leading to greater understanding and innovation. However, sharing biomedical data can put sensitive personal information at risk. This is usually addressed by data anonymization, which is a slow and expensive process. An alternative to anonymization is construction of a synthetic dataset that behaves similar to the real clinical data but preserves patient privacy. As part of a collaboration between Novartis and the Oxford Big Data Institute, a synthetic dataset was generated based on images from COSENTYX® (secukinumab) ankylosing spondylitis (AS) clinical studies. An auxiliary classifier Generative Adversarial Network (ac-GAN) was trained to generate synthetic magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of vertebral units (VUs), conditioned on the VU location (cervical, thoracic and lumbar). Here, we present a method for generating a synthetic dataset and conduct an in-depth analysis on its properties along three key metrics: image fidelity, sample diversity and dataset privacy.

Abstract Background MRI scanning has revolutionized the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, there is currently no consensus as to how best to classify MRI findings which has hampered the development of robust longitudinal epidemiological studies of the condition. We developed and tested an automated system for grading lumbar spine MRI scans for central LSS for use in epidemiological research. Methods Using MRI scans from the large population-based cohort study (the Wakayama Spine Study), all graded by a spinal surgeon, we trained an automated system to grade central LSS in four gradings of the bone and soft tissue margins: none, mild, moderate, severe. Subsequently, we tested the automated grading against the independent readings of our observer in a test set to investigate reliability and agreement. Results Complete axial views were available for 4855 lumbar intervertebral levels from 971 participants. The machine used 4365 axial views to learn (training set) and graded the remaining 490 axial views (testing set). The agreement rate for gradings was 65.7% (322/490) and the reliability (Lin’s correlation coefficient) was 0.73. In 2.2% of scans (11/490) there was a difference in classification of 2 and in only 0.2% (1/490) was there a difference of 3. When classified into 2 groups as ‘severe’ vs ‘no/mild/moderate’. The agreement rate was 94.1% (461/490) with a kappa of 0.75. Conclusions This study showed that an automated system can “learn” to grade central LSS with excellent performance against the reference standard. Thus SpineNet offers potential to grade LSS in large-scale epidemiological studies involving a high volume of MRI spine data with a high level of consistency and objectivity.

Objective: This UK-wide OATech Network + consensus study utilised a Delphi approach to discern levels of awareness across an expert panel regarding the role of existing and novel technologies in osteoarthritis research. To direct future cross-disciplinary research it aimed to identify which could be adopted to subcategorise patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Design: An online questionnaire was formulated based on technologies which might aid OA research and subcategorisation. During a two-day face-to-face meeting concordance of expert opinion was established with surveys (23 questions) before, during and at the end of the meeting (Rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively). Experts spoke on current evidence for imaging, genomics, epigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, biomarkers, activity monitoring, clinical engineering and machine learning relating to subcategorisation. For each round of voting, ≥80% votes led to consensus and ≤20% to exclusion of a statement. Results: Panel members were unanimous that a combination of novel technological advances have potential to improve OA diagnostics and treatment through subcategorisation, agreeing in Rounds 1 and 2 that epigenetics, genetics, MRI, proteomics, wet biomarkers and machine learning could aid subcategorisation. Expert presentations changed participants’ opinions on the value of metabolomics, activity monitoring and clinical engineering, all reaching consensus in Round 2. X-rays lost consensus between Rounds 1 and 2; clinical X-rays reached consensus in Round 3. Conclusion: Consensus identified that 9 of the 11 technologies should be targeted towards OA subcategorisation to address existing OA research technology and knowledge gaps. These novel, rapidly evolving technologies are recommended as a focus for emergent, cross-disciplinary osteoarthritis research programmes.

Multi-atlas segmentation has been widely used to segment various anatomical structures. The success of this technique partly relies on the selection of atlases that are best mapped to a new target image after registration. Recently, manifold learning has been proposed as a method for atlas selection. Each manifold learning technique seeks to optimize a unique objective function. Therefore, different techniques produce different embeddings even when applied to the same data set. Previous studies used a single technique in their method and gave no reason for the choice of the manifold learning technique employed nor the theoretical grounds for the choice of the manifold parameters. In this study, we compare side-by-side the results given by 3 manifold learning techniques (Isomap, Laplacian Eigenmaps and Locally Linear Embedding) on the same data set. We assess the ability of those 3 different techniques to select the best atlases to combine in the framework of multi-atlas segmentation. First, a leave-one-out experiment is used to optimize our method on a set of 110 manually segmented atlases of hippocampi and find the manifold learning technique and associated manifold parameters that give the best segmentation accuracy. Then, the optimal parameters are used to automatically segment 30 subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For our dataset, the selection of atlases with Locally Linear Embedding gives the best results. Our findings show that selection of atlases with manifold learning leads to segmentation accuracy close to or significantly higher than the state-of-the-art method and that accuracy can be increased by fine tuning the manifold learning process.

Survival prediction and treatment selection in lung cancer care are characterised by high levels of uncertainty. Bayesian Networks (BNs), which naturally reason with uncertain domain knowledge, can be applied to aid lung cancer experts by providing personalised survival estimates and treatment selection recommendations. Based on the English Lung Cancer Database (LUCADA), we evaluate the feasibility of BNs for these two tasks, while comparing the performances of various causal discovery approaches to uncover the most feasible network structure from expert knowledge and data. We show first that the BN structure elicited from clinicians achieves a disappointing area under the ROC curve of 0.75 (± 0.03), whereas a structure learned by the CAMML hybrid causal discovery algorithm, which adheres with the temporal restrictions, achieves 0.81 (± 0.03). Second, our causal intervention results reveal that BN treatment recommendations, based on prescribing the treatment plan that maximises survival, can only predict the recorded treatment plan 29% of the time. However, this percentage rises to 76% when partial matches are included.