Back

Advantages to interspace-level analyses over person-level analyses when studying relationships between lumbar spinal degeneration findings: a cross-sectional study

Suri, P.; Elgaeva, E. E.; Jarvik, J. G.; Rundell, S.; Tsepilov, Y.; Williams, F. M.; Heagerty, P. J.

2024-12-27 epidemiology
10.1101/2024.12.25.24319627 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeTo examine associations between lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration (LDD) and type II Modic changes (MC) when retaining information at each interspace ("interspace-level analysis"), as compared to aggregating information across interspaces as is typically done in spine research ("person-level analysis"). The study compared results from (1) interspace-level analyses assuming a common relationship across interspaces (the "interspace-level, common-relationship" approach), (2) interspace-level analyses allowing for interspace-specific associations (an "interspace-level, interspace-specific" approach), and (3) a conventional person-level analytic approach. MethodsAdults in primary care (n=147) received lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroradiologist-evaluated assessments of prevalent disc height narrowing (DHN), type II MC, and other LDD parameters. Analyses examined associations between DHN and type II MC in interspace-level, commonrelationship analyses, interspace-level, interspace-specific analyses, and conventional person-level analyses. ResultsCross-sectional, interspace-level, common-relationship analyses found large-magnitude DHN-type II MC associations (adjusted OR [aOR]=6.5, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 3.3-13; p<0.001). The magnitude of this association was larger and more precise than that yielded by person-level analyses (aOR=2.9 [95% CI 1.2-7]), and substantially more precise than interspace-level, interspace-specific analyses which allowed the association between DHN and type II MC to vary across levels. Across exploratory analyses of disc signal intensity and other MC types, interspace-level, common-relationship analyses produced larger-magnitude and more precise associations than person-level analyses in most situations, and were more precise than interspace-level, interspace-specific analyses. ConclusionsInterspace-level analytic approaches offer some advantages to person-level analyses that may be useful in understanding relationships between spinal degeneration findings.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.