Back

Spine Reviews: Crowdsourcing Global Spine Expert Knowledge via Digital Ledger Technology

Challier, V.; Diebo, B.; Lafage, V.; Dehouche, N.; Lonjon, G.; Cristini, J.; SpineDAO,

2026-04-13 health informatics
10.64898/2026.04.11.26350678 medRxiv
Show abstract

Study Design: Prospective observational study using a novel digital ledger technology (DLT)-based crowdsourcing platform. Objective: To develop and evaluate Spine Reviews, a blockchain-based platform for aggregating spine treatment recommendations from an international specialist panel, and to validate the clinical coherence of the resulting dataset. Summary of Background Data: Predictive models for low back pain treatment are limited by small, homogeneous datasets that fail to capture inter-clinician variability. Traditional multi-center data collection is expensive, slow, and geographically constrained. DLT-based crowdsourcing with cryptographic credentialing may overcome these barriers. Methods: Five hundred synthetic patient vignettes (digital twins) were generated; 463 retained after quality control. A review platform was built on the Solana blockchain using non-transferable Soulbound Tokens (SBTs) for credentialing and smart-contract compensation. Fifty-two specialists from 7 countries provided 4+ reviews per vignette across four treatment tiers, without access to imaging or physical examination. Mixed-effects regression with reviewer random intercepts partitioned decision variability. Results: The platform collected 2,066 completed reviews (97.7%) over 37 days at USD 0.97/review. Variance decomposition revealed that 36.7% of treatment tier variability was attributable to patient presentation, 19.2% to reviewer practice style, and 44.1% to their interaction. Neurological deficits (beta=0.39), symptom duration (beta=0.12), and pain (beta=0.09) independently predicted treatment escalation (all p<0.001). Gwet's AC1 was almost perfect for emergency (0.92) and substantial for conservative decisions (0.67). Reviewer confidence in treatment recommendations decreased with escalating tier severity (conservative 4.59/5 vs surgical 4.05/5), suggesting appropriate uncertainty calibration. Conclusions: DLT with SBT credentialing enables rapid, global, cost-effective aggregation of clinically coherent expert judgment. The three-component variance structure quantifies clinical equipoise in spine care and establishes that predictive models require diverse, multi-reviewer training data. Keywords: digital ledger technology; blockchain; crowdsourcing; clinical decision-making; low back pain; Soulbound Tokens

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.1%
2
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.8%
3
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 12%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.4%
6
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.4%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
9
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
10
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
11
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
12
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
13
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
14
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
15
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
17
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
19
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
20
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
23
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
24
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.7%
25
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
27
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
28
The Journal of Pain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
29
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
30
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%