The role of Artificial intelligence in the assessment of the spine and spinal cord
Open accessAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) application development is underway in all areas of radiology where many promising tools are focused on the spine and spinal cord. In the past decade, multiple spine AI algorithms have been created based on radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. These algorithms have wide-ranging purposes including automatic labeling of vertebral levels, automated description of disc degenerative changes, detection and classification of spine trauma, identification of osseous lesions, and the assessment of cord pathology. The overarching goals for these algorithms include improved patient throughput, reducing radiologist workload burden, and improving diagnostic accuracy. There are several pre-requisite tasks required in order to achieve these goals, such as automatic image segmentation, facilitating image acquisition and postprocessing. In this narrative review, we discuss some of the important imaging AI solutions that have been developed for the assessment of the spine and spinal cord. We focus on their practical applications and briefly discuss some key requirements for the successful integration of these tools into practice. The potential impact of AI in the imaging assessment of the spine and cord is vast and promises to provide broad reaching improvements for clinicians, radiologists, and patients alike.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Systems such as AI-Rad Companion leverage natural language generation models to compose radiology reports automatically, highlighting potential abnormalities and issues for clinician review.
“Systems such as AI-Rad Companion leverage natural language generation models to compose radiology reports automatically, highlighting potential abnormalities and issues for clinician review [20].”
From Generative AI in medical practice: in-depth exploration of privacy and security challenges (2024) · cites this paper as [20]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI in medical practice: in-depth exploration of privacy and security challenges
Chen, Y., & Esmaeilzadeh, P. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/53008 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
“Systems such as AI-Rad Companion leverage natural language generation models to compose radiology reports automatically, highlighting potential abnormalities and issues for clinician review [20].”
- Authors
- Martín-Noguerol, T., Oñate Miranda, M., Amrhein, T. J., Paulano-Godino, F., Xiberta, P., Vilanova, J. C., & Luna, A.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Universitat de Girona (ES)
- Venue
- European Journal of Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-04
- Volume
- 161
- Pages
- 110726
- ISSN
- 0720-048X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4319160002
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Universitat de Girona Digital Repository (Universitat de Girona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Universitat de Girona
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, spinal imaging, spinal cord imaging, intervertebral disc degeneration, bone lesions, image segmentation, radiologist workload, diagnostic accuracy, clinical implementation of AI
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Radiology, Spinal Cord, Spine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review