-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Intervertebral foramen to caudal and rostral rootlets to update spinal levels: limitations #12
Comments
Next step: computing a ratio PAM50 Mendez et al. measuresSince the distances interverbral foramen - rostral/cadual rootlets were smaller from Mendex et al. paper then what we estimated in the PAM50, we tested computing a ratio for the cervical levels between the distance formen-rostral/caudal rootlets in the Mendez et al. paper vs the PAM50. Then, we applided the ratio to all levels.
Results:Ratio PAM50/Mendez:Estimated distance foramen - rootlets with ratioHere is the distance foramen - rostral/caudal rootlets in the PAM50 vs the estimated (--) ones from the Mendez et al. paper using a ratio of 1.5 for rostral distance and 1.3 for caudal. Labels in the PAM50Here are the results with the Mendez et al metrics with the ratio from C2 to T1. We see the spinal segment mid-point. Since we don't see the nerve rootlets in the PAM50 template for lower levels (e.g., lumbar), we have no way to validate the estimate of the spinal levels. We also have to consider that the foramen-rootlet distances for the lumbar cord in the Mendez et al. paper have more variability across subjects. Dataspinal level labels: manually labeled spinal levels in the PAM50: manually labeled intervertebral foramen: |
Description
We want to update the spinal levels in teh PAM50 using the measures from the Mendez 2021 paper. We discussed the potential limitations in #10 of placing direclty the segment length using linear scaling. Instead, we propose to use a surrogate measure for each level to find the center of each segment.
The following distance were provided from the Mendez 2021 paper:
The intervertevral foramen was measured the following way:
Identifying the intervertebral foramen in the PAM50
Images from Mendez 2021
MRI Labels
How to label caudal point of the foramen (awaiting validation by a specialist):
File with labeled foramen
Distances in the PAM50
Without standard deviation
With standard deviation
columns
RESULTS
We see that level 4, the caudal rootlet is at the same z than the intervertebral foramen.
The caudal distances are too small to be placed in the PAM50 space: the caudal entry is placed at the same slice as the intervertebral foramen.
Expected behaviour:
**Current behaviour: **
Bellow are some potential causes to explain this behaviour.
Potential limitations
1. Label in MRI differs than in ex vivo measurements
The ex vivo were measured on the dorsal rootlets, but the intervertebral foramen is more anterior. We might not be labeling the right location of the foramen in MRI images compared to the ex vivo measures.
2. Shrinking of ex vivo spinal cords (fixed)
3. Mean age is 90 y.o.
4. Height of subjects: 162 cm
5. Mean and std only on n=9
6. Straightening adds variablity and inacuracy in the PAM50 template
Other
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: