Sensitivity of spinal load estimates to vertebral landmark error in biplanar radiograph–based musculoskeletal models

Patient-specific musculoskeletal models from biplanar radiographs offer a clinically feasible route to estimating spinal loading, but how vertebral landmark error affects force prediction remains unclear. Paired radiograph landmarks reconstruct the three-dimensional spine, making placement error a source of uncertainty in load estimates. We quantified how landmark-placement error affects compression and shear across perturbation magnitude, direction, and spinal region. Using perturbed landmarks and multi-rater annotations, compression maintained excellent ground-truth agreement up to 6.7 mm error. Shear reliability degraded at 2.2 mm, corresponding to 80 N mean absolute error and 26% normalized error. Therefore, these shear estimates require cautious clinical interpretation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering
Published
2026-09-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2026.2727107
Primary Topic
Medical Imaging and Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Sensitivity of spinal load estimates to vertebral landmark error in biplanar radiograph–based musculoskeletal models

Nima Ashjaee, John Street, Sidney Fels, Thomas Oxland
Computer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering
Medical Imaging and Analysis
article

Sensitivity of spinal load estimates to vertebral landmark error in biplanar radiograph–based musculoskeletal models

Nima Ashjaee, John Street, Sidney Fels, Thomas Oxland
article en

Abstract

Patient-specific musculoskeletal models from biplanar radiographs offer a clinically feasible route to estimating spinal loading, but how vertebral landmark error affects force prediction remains unclear. Paired radiograph landmarks reconstruct the three-dimensional spine, making placement error a source of uncertainty in load estimates. We quantified how landmark-placement error affects compression and shear across perturbation magnitude, direction, and spinal region. Using perturbed landmarks and multi-rater annotations, compression maintained excellent ground-truth agreement up to 6.7 mm error. Shear reliability degraded at 2.2 mm, corresponding to 80 N mean absolute error and 26% normalized error. Therefore, these shear estimates require cautious clinical interpretation.

Computer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering
University of British Columbia (CA), International Collaboration On Repair Discoveries (CA)
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Medical Imaging and Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.