ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Ordinal Deep Learning for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis Grading on Sagittal MRI.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neuroimmune Phenotyping as the Next Frontier in Chronic Pain Medicine for Musculoskeletal Back Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lumbar foraminal stenosis grading contributes to surgical-level selection, but automated four-grade classification remains challenging. Published pipelines for this dataset reach approximately 65% four-class accuracy, and deep classifiers offer no anatomical rationale. We investigated whether interpretable, millimeter-scale morphometry from segmentation masks improves grading beyond a deep image model. We analyzed the LSS-MRI-AISSLab sagittal T2-weighted dataset (469 patients, 2979 expert-graded foramina spanning L1-L2 through L5-S1 bilaterally on a four-grade scale). Ten morphometric descriptors were computed from mid-sagittal polygon segmentations and scaled to millimeters using each patient's recorded pixel spacing. A dual-branch network combined a fine-tuned ResNet-18 embedding of each foraminal region of interest with the morphometric vector through an ordinal regression head. Foraminal regions were supplied from expert bounding-box annotations; automated localization within the full sagittal examination was not evaluated. Four configurations (nominal softmax, appearance-only, anatomy-only, and fusion) were compared on a locked patient-level test set of 94 patients after five-fold cross-validation, with quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) as the primary endpoint and patient-clustered bootstrap inference. Feature-grade correlations were reported pooled and adjusted for lumbar level. Fusion achieved QWK 0.813 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.769-0.847) and 75.3% four-class accuracy. Appearance-only was statistically indistinguishable (QWK 0.806; delta QWK +0.006, 95% CI -0.023 to 0.036,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.