Skip to main content
Log in

Validity and Reliability of Active Shape Models for the Estimation of Cobb Angle in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Choosing the most suitable treatment for scoliosis relies heavily on accurate and reproducible Cobb angle measurement from successive radiographs. The objective is to reduce variability of Cobb angle measurement by reducing user intervention and bias. Custom software to increase automation of the Cobb angle measurement from posteroanterior radiographs was developed using active shape models. Validity and reliability of the automated system against a manual and semiautomated measurement method was conducted by two examiners each performing measurements on three occasions from a test set (N = 22). A training set (N = 47) of radiographs representative of curves seen in a scoliosis clinic was used to train the software to recognize vertebrae from T4 to L4. Images with a maximum Cobb angle between 20° and 50°, excluding surgical cases, were selected for training and test sets. Automated Cobb angles were calculated using best-fit slopes of the detected vertebrae endplates. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) showed high intraexaminer (ICC > 0.90, SEM 2°–3°) and interexaminer (ICC > 0.82, SEM 2°–4°), but poor intermethod reliability (ICC = 0.30, SEM 8°–9°). The automated method underestimated large curves. The reliability improved (ICC = 0.70, SEM 4°–5°) with exclusion of the four largest curves (>40°) in the test set. The automated method was reliable for moderate-sized curves, and did detect vertebrae in larger curves with a modified training set of larger curves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3
Fig 4
Fig 5.
Fig 6.
Fig 7.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lonstein JG: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet 344:1407–1412, 1994

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Scoliosis Research Society. In Depth Review of Scoliosis. Available at: http://www.srs.org/patients/

  3. Cobb JR: Outline for the study of scoliosis. Am Acad Orthop Surg Inst Course Lect 5:261–275, 1948

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chockalingam N, Dangerfield PH, Giakas G, Cochrane T, Dorgan JC: Computer-assisted Cobb measurement of scoliosis. Eur Spine J 11:353–357, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Loder RT, Spiegel D, Gutknecht S, Kleist K, Ly T, Mehbod A: The assessment of intraobserver and interobserver error in the measurement of noncongenital scoliosis in children ≤10 years of age. Spine 29:2548–2553, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mior SA, Kopansky-Giles DR, Crowther ER, Wright JG: A comparison of radiographic and electrogoniometric angles in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 21:1549–1555, 1996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cobb JR: Outlines for the study of scoliosis measurements from spinal roentgenograms. Phys Ther 59:764–765, 1948

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenfeldt MP, Harding IJ, Hauptfleisch JT, Fairbank JT: A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement—intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine 30:440–443, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shea KG, Stevens PM, Nelson M, Smith JT, Masters KS, Yandow S: A comparison of manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement: Intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine 23:551–555, 1998

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cootes TF, Hill A, Taylor CJ, Haslam J: The use of active shape models for locating structures in medical images. Image Vis Comput 12:355–366, 1994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, Lanitis A: Active shape models: Evaluation of a multi-resolution method for improving image search. Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference, pp 327–336, 1994

  12. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, Cooper DH, Graham J: Active shape models—their training and application. Comput Vis Image Underst 61:38–59, 1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lindley K: Model based interpretation of lumbar spine radiographs. MSc Thesis, University of Manchester, 1992

  14. Krebs DE: Declare your ICC type [letter]. Phys Ther 66:1431, 1986

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust: Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205, 2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use, 2nd edition. New York, New York: Oxford Medical Publications:106–119, 1995

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the University Hospital Foundation Medical Research Competition.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas L. Hill MBA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, S., Parent, E., Khorasani, M. et al. Validity and Reliability of Active Shape Models for the Estimation of Cobb Angle in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. J Digit Imaging 21, 208–218 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-007-9026-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-007-9026-7

Key words

Navigation