Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2022; 17(02): 274-279
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750785
Original Article

Use of Artificial Intelligence for the Development of Predictive Model to Help in Decision-Making for Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease

Gaurav Purohit
1   Department of Neurosurgery, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Madhur Choudhary
1   Department of Neurosurgery, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
V. D. Sinha
1   Department of Neurosurgery, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Context The aim of the study was to develop a prognostic model using artificial intelligence for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative spine disease for change in pain, functional status, and patient satisfaction based on preoperative variables included in following categories—sociodemographic, clinical, and radiological.

Methods and Materials A prospective cohort of 180 patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease was included and divided into three classes of management—conservative, decompressive surgery, and decompression with fixation. Preoperative variables, change in outcome measures (visual analog scale—VAS, Modified Oswestry Disability Index—MODI, and Neurogenic Claudication Outcome Score—NCOS), and type of management were assessed using Machine Learning models. These were used for creating a predictive tool for deciding the type of management that a patient should undergo to achieve the best results. Multivariate logistic regression was also used to identify prognostic factors of significance.

Results The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated from the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate the discrimination capability of various machine learning models. Random Forest Classifier gave the best ROC-AUC score in all three classes (0.863 for VAS, 0.831 for MODI, and 0.869 for NCOS), and the macroaverage AUC score was found to be 0.842 suggesting moderate discriminatory power. A graphical user interface (GUI) tool was built using the machine learning algorithm thus defined to take input details of patients and predict change in outcome measures.

Conclusion This study demonstrates that machine learning can be used as a tool to help tailor the decision-making process for a patient to achieve the best outcome. The GUI tool helps to incorporate the study results into active decision-making.

Keywords

neurosurgery - arificial intelligence - degenerative lumbar spine disease - machine learning - Random Forest Classifier - lumbar canal stenosis


Publication History

Article published online:
25 August 2022

© 2022. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018;392(10159):1789–1858 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 Erratum in: Lancet. 2019 Jun 22;393(10190):e44. PMID: 30496104; PMCID: PMC6227754
    Google Scholar
  • 2 DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo T. What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role?. Pain Med 2011; 12 (02) 224-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chen BL, Guo JB, Zhang HW. et al. Surgical versus non-operative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2018; 32 (02) 146-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chiu CC, Chuang TY, Chang KH, Wu CH, Lin PW, Hsu WY. The probability of spontaneous regression of lumbar herniated disc: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2015; 29 (02) 184-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review. Spine 2005; 30 (20) 2312-2320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine 2005; 30 (08) 936-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Eismont FJ, Norton RP, Hirsch BP. Surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014; 22 (04) 203-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD. et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (22) 2257-2270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jordan MI, Mitchell TM. Machine learning: trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science 2015; 349 (6245): 255-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Buchlak QD, Esmaili N, Leveque JC. et al. Machine learning applications to clinical decision support in neurosurgery: an artificial intelligence augmented systematic review. Neurosurg Rev 2020; 43 (05) 1235-1253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol 1959; 32 (01) 50-55
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 2001; 26 (17) 1873-1878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR. Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 166 (1 Pt 1): 193-199
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Bartynski WS, Lin L. Lumbar root compression in the lateral recess: MR imaging, conventional myelography, and CT myelography comparison with surgical confirmation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24 (03) 348-360
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wildermuth S, Zanetti M, Duewell S. et al. Lumbar spine: quantitative and qualitative assessment of positional (upright flexion and extension) MR imaging and myelography. Radiology 1998; 207 (02) 391-398 DOI: 10.1148/radiology.207.2.9577486. Erratum in: Radiology 1998 Sep;208(3):834. PMID: 9577486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Andreisek G, Imhof M, Wertli M. et al; Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study Working Group Zurich. A systematic review of semiquantitative and qualitative radiologic criteria for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (05) W735-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD. et al. Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2008; 33 (14) 1605-1610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schoenfeld AJ, Bono CM. Does surgical timing influence functional recovery after lumbar discectomy? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (06) 1963-1970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nygaard OP, Kloster R, Solberg T. Duration of leg pain as a predictor of outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective cohort study with 1-year follow up. J Neurosurg 2000; 92 (02) , Suppl): 131-134
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Ailon T, Tee J, Manson N. et al. Patient-reported outcomes following surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of a universal and multitier health care system. Spine J 2019; 19 (01) 24-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rihn JA, Radcliff K, Hilibrand AS. et al. Does obesity affect outcomes of treatment for lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis? Analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 2012; 37 (23) 1933-1946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Masuda S, Kanba Y, Kawai J, Ikeda N. Prognostic factors for drop foot due to lumbar degenerative diseases: the impact of surgical timing on postoperative recovery. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33 (04) 160-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Takenaka S, Aono H. Prediction of postoperative clinical recovery of drop foot attributable to lumbar degenerative diseases, via a Bayesian Network. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (03) 872-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hébert JJ, Abraham E, Wedderkopp N. et al. Preoperative factors predict postoperative trajectories of pain and disability following surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2020; 45 (21) E1421-E1430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fan J, Upadhye S, Worster A. Understanding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. CJEM 2006; 8 (01) 19-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar