
==== Front
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
1471-2474
BioMed Central London

7777
10.1186/s12891-024-07777-4
Systematic Review
Spine muscle auto segmentation techniques in MRI imaging: a systematic review
Kim Hyun-Bin 1
Kim Hyeon-Su 1
Kim Shin-June 1
Yoo Jun-Il furim@hanmail.net

2
1 https://ror.org/04gj5px28 grid.411605.7 0000 0004 0648 0025 Department of Biomedical Research Institute, Inha University Hospital, 27 Inhang-ro, Jung-gu, Incheon, Republic of Korea
2 https://ror.org/04gj5px28 grid.411605.7 0000 0004 0648 0025 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Inha University Hospital, 27 Inhang-ro, Jung-gu, Incheon, Republic of Korea
6 9 2024
6 9 2024
2024
25 71622 11 2023
14 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

The accurate segmentation of spine muscles plays a crucial role in analyzing musculoskeletal disorders and designing effective rehabilitation strategies. Various imaging techniques such as MRI have been utilized to acquire muscle images, but the segmentation process remains complex and challenging due to the inherent complexity and variability of muscle structures. In this systematic review, we investigate and evaluate methods for automatic segmentation of spinal muscles.

Methods

Data for this study were obtained from PubMed/MEDLINE databases, employing a search methodology that includes the terms 'Segmentation spine muscle’ within the title, abstract, and keywords to ensure a comprehensive and systematic compilation of relevant studies. Systematic reviews were not included in the study.

Results

Out of 369 related studies, we focused on 12 specific studies. All studies focused on segmentation of spine muscle use MRI, in this systematic review subjects such as healthy volunteers, back pain patients, ASD patient were included. MRI imaging was performed on devices from several manufacturers, including Siemens, GE. The study included automatic segmentation using AI, segmentation using PDFF, and segmentation using ROI.

Conclusion

Despite advancements in spine muscle segmentation techniques, challenges still exist. The accuracy and precision of segmentation algorithms need to be improved to accurately delineate the different muscle structures in the spine. Robustness to variations in image quality, artifacts, and patient-specific characteristics is crucial for reliable segmentation results. Additionally, the availability of annotated datasets for training and validation purposes is essential for the development and evaluation of new segmentation algorithms. Future research should focus on addressing these challenges and developing more robust and accurate spine muscle segmentation techniques to enhance clinical assessment and treatment planning for musculoskeletal disorders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-024-07777-4.

Keywords

Spine muscles
Segmentation
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Machine learning
Deep learning
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Musculoskeletal disorders, such as back pain and spinal deformities, have a significant impact on individuals' well-being, quality of life, and economy [1]. Spine muscles play a critical role in supporting the spine and transmitting forces within the musculoskeletal system [2]. Abnormalities or dysfunction in spinal muscles are often associated with musculoskeletal disorders. Accurate segmentation of spinal muscles is important for understanding the mechanisms underlying these disorders and for developing appropriate treatment strategies. While changes in muscle structure are typically a result of spine pathology rather than a cause, understanding these changes can provide valuable insights for both patients and physicians.

Medical imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are commonly used to acquire muscle images and analyze musculoskeletal structures [3]. These techniques provide detailed information about the morphology and composition of the spine muscles [4]. However, accurately segmenting spinal muscles in these images can be difficult due to several factors such as different data, and imaging protocols.

Several challenges make the segmentation of spine muscles complex. First, the complexity and variability of muscle structures, such as size, shape, and orientation, make it difficult to design a one-size-fits-all segmentation approach. Second, image artifacts, such as noise and partial volume effects, can degrade image quality and affect segmentation accuracy. Third, patient-specific variations, such as body posture and position, can introduce additional challenges in accurately delineating muscle boundaries. These challenges highlight the need for advanced and robust segmentation techniques.

Therefore, accurate segmentation of spine muscles is vital for understanding musculoskeletal disorders and designing effective rehabilitation strategies [5]. Advanced imaging techniques and computational algorithms have contributed to significant advancements in this field. However, challenges related to the complexity of muscle structures, image artifacts, and patient-specific variations still exist. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the state of the art of spinal muscle segmentation using AI methods and identify optimal algorithms to identify areas for improvement to improve clinical evaluation and treatment planning for musculoskeletal disorders and apply them to further research.

Methods

Study eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (1) research unrelated to segmentation spine muscle, (2) studies written in English. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies that not used MRI to measure muscle, (2) studies not that did not meet other criteria. Figure 1 for more details.Fig. 1 PRISMA flow chart

Search method to identify appropriate studies

In this study, we conducted a literature search following the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) in the PubMed/MEDLINE library [6]. We searched for papers published from January 1992 to August 2023 using the following search term; segmentation spine muscle MRI. These search queries were employed to retrieve relevant articles for our research.

Data extraction

To conduct an analysis of relevant papers suitable for our study, the following variables were extracted: (i) Author; (ii) Year; (iii) Segmentation method; (iv) Subjects; (v) Data; (vi) Performance; Table 1. Table 1 Index of spinal muscle segmentation research results from MRI images

Author	Year	Segementation method	Subjects	Data	Performance	
Frank Niemeyer et al.	2022	U-Net	22 healthy volunteer	60 lumbar axial image	Jaccard score:

0.862 – 0.935

	
David Baur et al.	2022	U-Net	100 back pain patient	3650 axial T2 image	DSC: 0.91,	
Benjamin Dourthe et al.	2021	CNN	12 healthy volunteer,

8 ASD patient

	246 lumbar image, 384 throatic image	ASD of DSC > 0.76,

Healthy of DSC > 0.86

	
E. O. Wesselink et al.	2022	CNN	76 Back pain female patient	76 patient T2 image	DSC ≥ 0.885	
Kenneth A.Weber et al.	2022	CNN, V-Net	39 whiplash injury patient	N/S	Left DSC:0.862 ± 0.017,

Right DSC: 0.871 ± 0.016

	
Madeline Hess et al.	2022	V-Net	USCF dataset	206 randomize image	DSC: 0.88	
Egon Burian et al.	2019	PDFF	54 healthy volunteer	N/S	N/S	
Kenneth A. Weber et al.	2021	CNN	84 MVC patient	N/S	Left and Right MFSS of DSC: 0.79 ± 0.01,

0.78 ± 0.01

	
Anoosha Pai S et al.	2020	ROI	6 healthy volunteer	480 image	TZ, EX, TS muscle of DSC range: 0.91–0.95, 0.91–0.95, 0.86–0.92	
Nico Sollmann et al.	2020	PDFF	76 healthy volunteer	N/S	Erector spinae muscles L3–L5 (p < 0.001)	
Áine Ni Mhuiris et al.	2016	T1-W	10 adult	N/S	Intra,inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.88; CI: 0.87–0.90), (ICC = 0.82; CI: 0.80– 0.84)	
Michael Dieckmeyer et al.	2021	PDFF	26 healthy adult	N/S	Between Kurtosis and Extension Strength Correlation (p = 0.001)	
PDFF Proton Density Fat Fraction, DICE Similarity Coefficient, CNN Convolution Neural Network, ROI Region of Interest

Ethical considerations

As this is a systematic review, ethical approval is not required. Confidential patient information will not be collected or used in this study.

Results

After reviewing the abstracts and screening according to the PRISMA guidelines, we excluded 189 studies that were not relevant to spine muscle segmentation. Additionally, 0 studies not written in English were excluded. Furthermore, 127 studies that did not use MRI as a measurement equipment were excluded. We also excluded 41 studies that did not evaluate indicators that met the criteria. Finally, a total of 12 studies were included in our research scope [7–18]. The studies included in the systematic review were conducted between 1992 and 2023 and involved healthy volunteers, back pain patients, ASD patients. MRI imaging was performed on devices from several manufacturers, including Siemens, GE, and MEDSPEC. Studies included automatic segmentation using AI, segmentation using PDFF, and segmentation using ROI. Segmentation performance was higher AI method than other segmentation method. Most high DSC 0.91 was David Baur’s U-Net. (Table 2). Table 2 Index of spinal muscle AI segmentation research results from MRI images

Author	Model	Subjects	Classification classes	Data	Performance	
Frank Niemeyer	U-Net	22 healthy volunteer	N = 8 (left, right)

Psoas major,

Quadratus lumborum,

Erector spinae,

Multifudus

	60 lumbar axial image	Jaccard scoer:

0.862 – 0.935

	
David Baur	U-Net	100 back pain patient	N = 2

Muscle tissue,

Fat tissue

	3650 axial T2 image	DSC: 0.91,	
Benjamin Dourthe	CNN	12 healthy volunteer,

8 ASD patient

	N = 7 (left, right)

Vertebral body,

Multifudus,

Erector spinae,

Psoas major

	246 lumbar image, 384 throatic image	ASD of DSC > 0.76,

Healthy of DSC > 0.86

	
E. O. Wesselink	CNN	76 Back pain female patient	N = 6 (left, right)

Multifudus,

Erector spinae,

Psoas major

	76 patient T2 image	DSC ≥ 0.885	
Kenneth A.Weber	CNN, V-Net	39 whiplash injury patient	N = 2 (left, right)

Deep cervical spine extensor

	N/S	Left DSC:0.862 ± 0.017,

Right DSC: 0.871 ± 0.016

	
Madeline Hess	V-Net	USCF dataset	N = 3

Vertebral body,

Intervertebral disc,

Paraspinous

	206 randomize image	DSC: 0.88	
Kenneth A. Weber	CNN	84 MVC patient	N = 14 (left, right)

Multifudus and Semispinalis Cervicis,

Longus Colli and Longus Capitis,

Semispinalis Capitis,

Splenius Capitis,

Levator Scapula,

Strenocleidomastoid,

Trapezius

	N/S	Left and Right MFSS of DSC: 0.79 ± 0.01,

0.78 ± 0.01

	
DSC DICE Similarity Coefficient, ASD Atrial Septal Defect, MVC Multi-Level Cervial

Discussion

This systematic review provided insight into the different methods and outcomes of spinal muscle splitting. The identified segmentation techniques, including traditional image processing methods, statistical models, machine learning approaches, and deep learning-based algorithms, have shown promise in accurately segmenting spine muscles. Each technique has its advantages and limitations, and the choice of technique depends on the specific requirements of the segmentation task, including accuracy, computational complexity, and adaptability to different types of spine muscle images. Among the segmentation methods used in this systematic review, segmentation using AI showed the best performance. Among them, we compared how performance differs depending on the model and preprocessing method used. Tables 2 and  3. Table 3 Hyperparameter of spinal muscle segmentation studies

Author	Model	Learning rate	Optimizer	Activation function	Drop out	Etc	Performance	
Frank Niemeyer	U-Net	0.001	Adam	Leaky ReLU	0.03	Mini batch: 16	Jaccard scoer:

0.862 – 0.935

	
David Baur	U-Net	N/S	N/S	N/S	N/S	Model training 25–30 epoch	DSC: 0.91,	
Benjamin Dourthe	CNN	0.0001	Adam	N/S	N/S	Each model 500 epochs	ASD of DSC > 0.76,

Healthy of DSC > 0.86

	
E. O. Wesselink	CNN	0.001	Adam	Leaky ReLU	N/S	Loss funtion = DiceEloss,

Weight decay = 0.0001

	DSC ≥ 0.885	
Kenneth A.Weber	CNN, V-Net	0.001	Adam	PReLU	N/S	Loss funtion = Dice,

Batch size = 30

	Left DSC:0.862 ± 0.017,

Right DSC: 0.871 ± 0.016

	
Madeline Hess	V-Net	0.0001	Adam	N/S	0.2	Loss function = Weighted,

Dice sigmoid,

Batch size = 32

	DSC: 0.88	
Kenneth A. Weber	CNN	0.001	Adam	ReLU	N/S	Batch size = 3,

Decay = 0.00001

	Left and Right MFSS of DSC: 0.79 ± 0.01,

0.78 ± 0.01

	
ReLU Rectified Linear Unit, DSC Dice Score

Advances in deep learning-based algorithms, especially CNN architectures, have significantly improved spinal muscle segmentation. David Baur developed a CNN to segment lumbar spinal muscles in lower back pain patients from consecutive MRI slices and classify fatty muscle degeneration automatically. The study used 100 lumbar spine MRIs with 3650 slices for automatic image segmentation. The U-Net-based network achieved high segmentation accuracy, particularly for overall muscle segmentation, with a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.91. These algorithms have demonstrated outstanding performance by learning complex features directly from muscle images without the need for hand-crafted features.

Kenneth A.Weber, Madeline Hess’s T1 axial Muscle Segmentation uses V-Net. Kenneth A.Weber’s performance is (Left DSC:0.862 ± 0.017, Right DSC: 0.871 ± 0.016) lower than Madeline Hess’s performance (DSC:0.88). This is because the elements that make up v-net are different. Table 4 compares these differences. We also compared the performance of the 3D CNN and 2D CNN. In E. O. Wesselink's study, the objective was to compare the performance between 2D convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and 3D CNNs. While 2D CNNs are designed to extract features from 2-dimensional images, 3D CNNs do so from 3-dimensional volumetric data. In this study, data augmentation techniques were applied, and the True positive rate (TPR) for right-sided muscles specifically the multifidus, erector spinae, and psoas major was compared between the two models. As indicated in Fig. 2, the 2D model demonstrated superior performance in identifying muscles when compared to the ground truth, outperforming the 3D model. The performance of the segmentation model varies depending on the presence and severity of spine pathology [19]. In Benjamin Dourthe's study, the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) values for three specific Regions of Interest (ROI) were compared between healthy individuals and those with Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD). The ROIs included the vertebral body, psoas major, and multifidus erector spinae. The study uses data from five different sets to make an in-depth comparison of how well these anatomical regions are identified in both groups. Based on the analysis, the lumbar region in healthy individuals performed better in terms of ROI identification compared to those with ASD. Figure 3. Table 4 Comparison of V-Net configurations used for spine muscle segmentation

Author	Kernels	Padding	Learning rate	Optimizer	Loss function	Batch size	Drop out	Input size	
Kenneth A.Weber	5 × 5	128 × 128	0.001	Adam	Dice	30	N/S	N/S	
Madeline Hess	N/S	N/S	0.0001	Adam	Weighted Dice sigmoid	32	0.2	256 × 256	

Fig. 2 Comparison of True Positive Rate for Right-sided Muscles: 2D vs 3D with Data Augmentation

Fig. 3 Comparison of DSC Values for Healthy and ASD Lumbar Across Multiple Sets

Frank Niemeyer et al. [20] highlights the differences in segmentation performance between individuals with lumbar spine pathology, such as adult spinal deformity (ASD), and those without. Based on the provided data and the referenced study, there are several factors that could contribute to the observed differences in segmentation performance. One of the primary reasons for the difference in segmentation performance could be attributed to the higher heterogeneity of lumbar spine pathology in ASD patients. In healthy individuals, the anatomical structures are more consistent and predictable, allowing segmentation algorithms to perform better. However, in ASD patients, the anatomical structures are more varied due to the deformities and associated pathological changes. This variability makes it challenging for segmentation models to accurately identify regions of interest (ROI), leading to decreased performance. The difference in segmentation performance between healthy individuals and those with ASD can be primarily attributed to the higher heterogeneity and complexity of pathological anatomy in ASD patients.

The performance differences in spinal muscle segmentation algorithms can be attributed to several factors. such as model architectures, dataset sizes, and batch size. Different neural network architectures, U-Net, CNN, and V-Net, have unique structural characteristics that influence their performance. For instance, U-Net is designed for biomedical image segmentation and excels at capturing fine details and contextual information, whereas CNNs are more general-purpose and can vary significantly in their complexity and depth. The performance differences in spinal muscle segmentation algorithms can be attributed to a combination of hyperparameters, model architectures, and dataset characteristics. While the choice of hyperparameters such as learning rate, optimizer, activation function, and regularization techniques (dropout) significantly impact model performance, the dataset size and the specific loss functions used are equally crucial. To optimize segmentation performance, it is essential to carefully tune these parameters and consider the specific requirements of the task at hand. Future research could focus on systematically evaluating these factors across different models to establish more standardized guidelines for optimal performance in spinal muscle segmentation.

Limitation

Spine muscle segmentation is crucial due to its pivotal role in the analysis of musculoskeletal disorders and the design of effective rehabilitation strategies. The reviewed studies showcased various segmentation techniques, with deep learning-based algorithms demonstrating superior performance. However, challenges related to accuracy, robustness, and dataset availability persist. CT imaging can also perform automatic segmentation of spinal muscles well. For example, among studies on automatic segmentation of spinal muscles in CT images, there is a study using Bayesian U-Net to investigate the relationship between the accuracy of muscle segmentation around the spine in torso CT images [21], and a method of 3D segmentation of skeletal muscles, including paraspinal muscles, by region in the L3 slice of body CT images using simultaneous learning using 2D U-Net [22], or multi-scale iterative random forest classification was used. A fully automated segmentation study of paraspinal muscles in 3D trunk CT images [23]. etc. There is this. These studies should consider incorporating both MRI and CT modalities in paravertebral muscle segmentation. CT imaging can be particularly useful for evaluating patient groups where MRI imaging is not feasible, such as those with pacemakers. Also, because the comparative segmentation methods of the included studies are all different, it cannot be concluded that the best algorithm among the studies is the artificial intelligence-based segmentation. In the future, a method to integrate all studies and conduct quantitative evaluation will need to be developed. Addressing these challenges will lead to more accurate segmentation techniques and enhance clinical assessment and treatment planning for musculoskeletal disorders.

Conclusion

Spinal muscle segmentation is a variety of techniques, ranging from traditional methods to deep learning algorithms such as David Baur's U-Net, have shown promise in accurately segmenting spinal muscles. Deep learning, in particular, excels at this task by learning complex features directly from images. Spinal muscle segmentation plays an important role in musculoskeletal disease analysis and rehabilitation planning. Deep learning has shown excellent performance, but issues related to accuracy, robustness, and dataset availability still remain. Addressing these challenges will further improve clinical evaluation and treatment strategies for musculoskeletal disorders.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 1

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea, Health Industry Development Institute(KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number : HI22C0494).

Authors’ contributions

Study concept and design: Jun-Il Yoo Study analysis and interpretation: Hyun-Bin Kim Study Investigation: Hyeon-Su Kim, Shin-June Kim.

Funding

No funding for this study.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article or are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Roux CH Impact of musculoskeletal disorders on quality of life: an inception cohort study Ann Rheum Dis 2005 64 4 606 611 10.1136/ard.2004.020784 15576417
Roux CH, et al. Impact of musculoskeletal disorders on quality of life: an inception cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(4):606–11. 10.1136/ard.2004.020784.15576417 10.1136/ard.2004.020784
2. Lynders C The Critical Role of Development of the Transversus Abdominis in the Prevention and Treatment of Low Back Pain HSS J 2019 15 3 214 220 10.1007/s11420-019-09717-8 31624475
Lynders C. The critical role of development of the transversus abdominis in the prevention and treatment of low back pain. HSS J. 2019;15(3):214–20. 10.1007/s11420-019-09717-8.31624475 10.1007/s11420-019-09717-8
3. Dean Deyle G The role of MRI in musculoskeletal practice: a clinical perspective J Man Manip Ther 2011 19 3 152 161 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000009 22851878
Dean Deyle G. The role of MRI in musculoskeletal practice: a clinical perspective. J Man Manip Ther. 2011;19(3):152–61. 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000009.22851878 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000009
4. Crawford RJ Fortin M Weber KA Smith A Elliott JM ARE MRI TECHNOLOGIES CRUCIAL TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SPINAL CONDITIONS? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019 49 5 320 329 10.2519/jospt.2019.8793 30913967
Crawford RJ, Fortin M, Weber KA, Smith A, Elliott JM. Are MRI technologies crucial to our understanding of spinal conditions? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(5):320–9. 10.2519/jospt.2019.8793.30913967 10.2519/jospt.2019.8793
5. Noonan AM Brown SHM Paraspinal muscle pathophysiology associated with low back pain and spine degenerative disorders JOR Spine 2021 4 3 e1171 10.1002/jsp2.1171 34611593
Noonan AM, Brown SHM. Paraspinal muscle pathophysiology associated with low back pain and spine degenerative disorders. JOR Spine. 2021;4(3):e1171. 10.1002/jsp2.1171.34611593 10.1002/jsp2.1171
6. Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement PLoS Med. 2009 6 7 e1000097 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 19621072
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.10.1371/journal.pmed.100009719621072 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
7. Niemeyer F Zanker A Jonas R Tao Y Galbusera F Wilke HJ An externally validated deep learning model for the accurate segmentation of the lumbar paravertebral muscles Eur Spine J 2022 31 8 2156 2164 10.1007/s00586-022-07320-w 35852607
Niemeyer F, Zanker A, Jonas R, Tao Y, Galbusera F, Wilke HJ. An externally validated deep learning model for the accurate segmentation of the lumbar paravertebral muscles. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(8):2156–64. 10.1007/s00586-022-07320-w.35852607 10.1007/s00586-022-07320-w
8. Baur D Analysis of the paraspinal muscle morphology of the lumbar spine using a convolutional neural network (CNN) Eur Spine J 2022 31 3 774 782 10.1007/s00586-021-07073-y 34894288
Baur D, et al. Analysis of the paraspinal muscle morphology of the lumbar spine using a convolutional neural network (CNN). Eur Spine J. 2022;31(3):774–82. 10.1007/s00586-021-07073-y.34894288 10.1007/s00586-021-07073-y
9. Dourthe B Automated Segmentation of Spinal Muscles From Upright Open MRI Using a Multiscale Pyramid 2D Convolutional Neural Network Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022 47 16 1179 1186 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004308 34919072
Dourthe B, et al. Automated segmentation of spinal muscles from upright open MRI using a multiscale pyramid 2D convolutional neural network. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47(16):1179–86. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004308.34919072 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004308
10. Wesselink EO Convolutional neural networks for the automatic segmentation of lumbar paraspinal muscles in people with low back pain Sci Rep 2022 12 1 13485 10.1038/s41598-022-16710-5 35931772
Wesselink EO, et al. Convolutional neural networks for the automatic segmentation of lumbar paraspinal muscles in people with low back pain. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):13485. 10.1038/s41598-022-16710-5.35931772 10.1038/s41598-022-16710-5
11. Weber KA Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for the Automatic Quantification of Muscle Fat Infiltration Following Whiplash Injury Sci Rep 2019 9 1 7973 10.1038/s41598-019-44416-8 31138878
Weber KA, et al. Deep learning convolutional neural networks for the automatic quantification of muscle fat infiltration following whiplash injury. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):7973. 10.1038/s41598-019-44416-8.31138878 10.1038/s41598-019-44416-8
12. Hess M Deep Learning for Multi-Tissue Segmentation and Fully Automatic Personalized Biomechanical Models from BACPAC Clinical Lumbar Spine MRI Pain Med 2023 24 Suppl 1 S139 S148 10.1093/pm/pnac142 36315069
Hess M, et al. Deep learning for multi-tissue segmentation and fully automatic personalized biomechanical models from BACPAC clinical lumbar spine MRI. Pain Med. 2023;24(Suppl 1):S139–48. 10.1093/pm/pnac142.36315069 10.1093/pm/pnac142
13. Burian E Lumbar muscle and vertebral bodies segmentation of chemical shift encoding-based water-fat MRI: the reference database MyoSegmenTUM spine BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019 20 1 152 10.1186/s12891-019-2528-x 30961552
Burian E, et al. Lumbar muscle and vertebral bodies segmentation of chemical shift encoding-based water-fat MRI: the reference database MyoSegmenTUM spine. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):152. 10.1186/s12891-019-2528-x.30961552 10.1186/s12891-019-2528-x
14. Weber KA Multi-muscle deep learning segmentation to automate the quantification of muscle fat infiltration in cervical spine conditions Sci Rep. 2021 11 1 1 10.1038/s41598-021-95972-x 33414495
Weber KA, et al. Multi-muscle deep learning segmentation to automate the quantification of muscle fat infiltration in cervical spine conditions. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1. 10.1038/s41598-021-95972-x.33414495 10.1038/s41598-021-95972-x
15. Pai S A Quantitative identification and segmentation repeatability of thoracic spinal muscle morphology JOR Spine 2020 3 3 e1103 10.1002/jsp2.1103 33015576
Pai S A, et al. Quantitative identification and segmentation repeatability of thoracic spinal muscle morphology. JOR Spine. 2020;3(3):e1103. 10.1002/jsp2.110333015576 10.1002/jsp2.1103
16. Sollmann N Regional variation in paraspinal muscle composition using chemical shift encoding-based water-fat MRI Quant Imaging Med Surg 2020 10 2 496 507 10.21037/qims.2020.01.10 32190574
Sollmann N, et al. Regional variation in paraspinal muscle composition using chemical shift encoding-based water-fat MRI. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2020;10(2):496–507. 10.21037/qims.2020.01.10.32190574 10.21037/qims.2020.01.10
17. Mhuiris ÁN Volken T Elliott JM Hoggarth M Samartzis D Crawford RJ Reliability of quantifying the spatial distribution of fatty infiltration in lumbar paravertebral muscles using a new segmentation method for T1-weighted MRI BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016 17 234 10.1186/s12891-016-1090-z 27230072
Mhuiris ÁN, Volken T, Elliott JM, Hoggarth M, Samartzis D, Crawford RJ. Reliability of quantifying the spatial distribution of fatty infiltration in lumbar paravertebral muscles using a new segmentation method for T1-weighted MRI. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:234. 10.1186/s12891-016-1090-z.27230072 10.1186/s12891-016-1090-z
18. Dieckmeyer M Texture Features of Proton Density Fat Fraction Maps from Chemical Shift Encoding-Based MRI Predict Paraspinal Muscle Strength Diagnostics (Basel) 2021 11 2 239 10.3390/diagnostics11020239 33557080
Dieckmeyer M, et al. Texture features of proton density fat fraction maps from chemical shift encoding-based MRI predict paraspinal muscle strength. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(2):239. 10.3390/diagnostics11020239.33557080 10.3390/diagnostics11020239
19. Saeed MU Dikaios N Dastgir A Ali G Hamid M Hajjej F An Automated Deep Learning Approach for Spine Segmentation and Vertebrae Recognition Using Computed Tomography Images Diagnostics (Basel) 2023 13 16 2658 10.3390/diagnostics13162658 37627917
Saeed MU, Dikaios N, Dastgir A, Ali G, Hamid M, Hajjej F. An Automated deep learning approach for spine segmentation and vertebrae recognition using computed tomography images. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(16):2658. 10.3390/diagnostics13162658.37627917 10.3390/diagnostics13162658
20. Ferrero E Volume of spinopelvic muscles: comparison between adult spinal deformity patients and asymptomatic subjects Spine Deform 2021 9 6 1617 1624 10.1007/s43390-021-00357-9 33909275
Ferrero E, et al. Volume of spinopelvic muscles: comparison between adult spinal deformity patients and asymptomatic subjects. Spine Deform. 2021;9(6):1617–24. 10.1007/s43390-021-00357-9.33909275 10.1007/s43390-021-00357-9
21. Wakamatsu Y, Kamiya N, Zhou X, Hara T, Fujita H. Relationship between number of annotations and accuracy in segmentation of the erector spinae muscle using Bayesian U-Net in torso CT images. In: International Forum on Medical Imaging in Asia 2021. SPIE; 2021. p. 30–3. 10.1117/12.2590780.
22. Kawamoto M Kamiya N Zhou X Kato H Hara T Fujita H Simultaneous Learning of Erector Spinae Muscles for Automatic Segmentation of Site-Specific Skeletal Muscles in Body CT Images IEEE Access 2024 12 15468 15476 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3335948
Kawamoto M, Kamiya N, Zhou X, Kato H, Hara T, Fujita H. Simultaneous Learning of Erector Spinae Muscles for Automatic Segmentation of Site-Specific Skeletal Muscles in Body CT Images. IEEE Access. 2024;12:15468–76. 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3335948.10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3335948
23. Kamiya N Li J Kume M Fujita H Shen D Zheng G Fully automatic segmentation of paraspinal muscles from 3D torso CT images via multi-scale iterative random forest classifications Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2018 13 11 1697 1706 10.1007/s11548-018-1852-1 30173335
Kamiya N, Li J, Kume M, Fujita H, Shen D, Zheng G. Fully automatic segmentation of paraspinal muscles from 3D torso CT images via multi-scale iterative random forest classifications. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018;13(11):1697–706. 10.1007/s11548-018-1852-1.30173335 10.1007/s11548-018-1852-1
