dc.contributor.author
Liu, Sihai
dc.contributor.author
Schmidt, Hendrik
dc.contributor.author
Ziegeler, Katharina
dc.contributor.author
Zhang, Tianwei
dc.contributor.author
Yang, Daishui
dc.contributor.author
Taheri, Nima
dc.contributor.author
Pumberger, Matthias
dc.contributor.author
Becker, Luis
dc.date.accessioned
2025-11-12T13:49:44Z
dc.date.available
2025-11-12T13:49:44Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/50291
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-50017
dc.description.abstract
Purpose
Changes in the cross-sectional area (CSA) and functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) of the lumbar multifidus (MF) and erector spinae muscles (ES) are factors that can contribute to low back pain. For the assessment of muscle CSA and composition there are various software and threshold methods used for tissue segmentation in quantitative analysis. However, there is currently no gold standard for software as well as muscle segmentation. This study aims to analyze the measurement error between different image processing software and different threshold methods for muscle segmentation.
Methods
Magnetic resonance images (MRI) of 60 patients were evaluated. Muscle CSA and FCSA measurements were acquired from axial T2-weighted MRI of the MF and ES at L4/L5 and L5/S1. CSA, FCSA, and FCSA/CSA ratio were measured independently by two observers. The MRI images were measured using two different software programs (ImageJ and Amira) and with two threshold methods (Circle/Overlap method) for each software to evaluate FCSA and FCSA/CSA ratio.
Results
Inter-software comparisons revealed high inter-rater reliability. However, poor inter-rater reliability were obtained with different threshold methods. CSA, FCSA, and FCSA/CSA showed excellent inter-software agreement of 0.75–0.99 regardless of the threshold segmentation method. The inter-rater reliability between the two observers ranged between 0.75 and 0.99. Comparison of the two segmentation methods revealed agreement between 0.19 and 0.84. FCSA and FCSA/CSA measured via the Overlap method were significantly higher than those measured via the Circle method (P < 0.01).
Conclusion
The present study showed a high degree of reliability with very good agreement between the two software programs. However, study results based on different threshold methods should not be directly compared.
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
paraspinal muscle
en
dc.subject
fatty infiltration
en
dc.subject
magnetic resonance imaging
en
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Inter-software and inter-threshold reliability of quantitative paraspinal muscle segmentation
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1007/s00586-023-08050-3
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
European Spine Journal
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
2
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishername
Springer Nature
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart
369
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend
378
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
33
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
refubium.funding
Springer Nature DEAL
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pmid
38055039
dcterms.isPartOf.issn
0940-6719
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1432-0932