Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jun 25;16(6):e0253863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253863

Fatty infiltration in cervical flexors and extensors in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy using a multi-muscle segmentation model

Monica Paliwal 1,*, Kenneth A Weber II 2, Andrew C Smith 3, James M Elliott 4,5, Fauziyya Muhammad 1, Nader S Dahdaleh 6, Jerzy Bodurka 7,8, Yasin Dhaher 9, Todd B Parrish 10, Sean Mackey 2, Zachary A Smith 1
Editor: Jonathan H Sherman11
PMCID: PMC8232539  PMID: 34170961

Abstract

Background

In patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) that have spinal cord compression and sensorimotor deficits, surgical decompression is often performed. However, there is heterogeneity in clinical presentation and post-surgical functional recovery.

Objectives

Primary: a) to assess differences in muscle fat infiltration (MFI) in patients with DCM versus controls, b) to assess association between MFI and clinical disability. Secondary: to assess association between MFI pre-surgery and post-surgical functional recovery.

Study design

Cross-sectional case control study.

Methods

Eighteen patients with DCM (58.6 ± 14.2 years, 10 M/8F) and 25 controls (52.6 ± 11.8 years, 13M/12 F) underwent 3D Dixon fat-water imaging. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was used to segment cervical muscles (MFSS- multifidus and semispinalis cervicis, LC- longus capitis/colli) and quantify MFI. Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) and Nurick were collected.

Results

Patients with DCM had significantly higher MFI in MFSS (20.63 ± 5.43 vs 17.04 ± 5.24, p = 0.043) and LC (18.74 ± 6.7 vs 13.66 ± 4.91, p = 0.021) than controls. Patients with increased MFI in LC and MFSS had higher disability (LC: Nurick (Spearman’s ρ = 0.436, p = 0.003) and mJOA (ρ = -0.399, p = 0.008)). Increased MFI in LC pre-surgery was associated with post-surgical improvement in Nurick (ρ = -0.664, p = 0.026) and mJOA (ρ = -0.603, p = 0.049).

Conclusion

In DCM, increased muscle adiposity is significantly associated with sensorimotor deficits, clinical disability, and functional recovery after surgery. Accurate and time efficient evaluation of fat infiltration in cervical muscles may be conducted through implementation of CNN models.

Introduction

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive disease that could lead to symptoms such as hyperreflexia, proprioceptive loss, weakness, imbalance, and gait disturbances [1,2]. It is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in the elderly [3,4]. The economic burden of surgical hospitalizations for degenerative cervical spine diseases including DCM is a staggering $USD 2 Billion per annum, not accounting for additional costs owing to time lost from work, rehabilitation costs, and nonsurgical treatment costs [5].

Patients may have varying degrees of cord compression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) but it is currently unknown if the severity of compression is directly related to symptom severity [6,7]. Moreover, a considerable number of patients undergoing cervical decompression surgery report less than 50% improvement in clinical function as measured by modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) [8]. This variability in clinical presentation and response to surgery indicates a multifactorial nature of DCM’s pathophysiology. Several potential pathological mechanisms have been shown to contribute to functional disability in DCM, namely demyelination of spinal cord white matter regions/tracts [912], neuronal and volumetric loss of gray matter [13]. Fatty infiltration of cervical spinal musculature is emerging as a potential driver of disability [14]. An improved understanding of specific pathophysiological processes may inform both the clinical assessment of and management for patients with DCM.

Muscle fat infiltration (MFI) is commonly observed in patients with cervical spine diseases including whiplash associated disorders (WAD) from a motor vehicle collision [15], traumatic spinal cord injury [16], and DCM [14]. Increased MFI in cervical flexors (longus capitis/colli and sternocleidomastoid muscles) [17] and extensors (multifidus and semispinalis cervicis) [18,19] is associated with increased pain and clinical disability in patients with WAD. In a smaller clinical cohort of the patients used in this study, we previously showed that in patients with DCM there is an increased MFI in the multifidus muscles that may be associated with clinical disability, as measured by mJOA, and Nurick scales [14]. Changes in muscle composition may occur due to aging [20], pre-existing degenerative changes [15,21], and/or chronic denervation [2224]. Insidious damage to the spinal cord in patients with DCM may lead to decreased innervation of the cervical muscles resulting in secondary muscle degeneration, observed as MFI. Along with multifidus muscles, other cervical extensors such as semispinalis cervicis and flexors such as longus capitus and longus colli may also be adversely affected. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of MFI in cervical spine musculature is warranted to understand both the mechanisms that drive clinical disability and heterogeneity in post-surgical symptoms and recovery. It may help to identify specific muscle groups that are affected and inform interventions through targeted physical therapy (flexors/extensors) regimens to facilitate better cervical neuromuscular function [25,26].

One barrier to quantifying muscle injury is the arduous manual segmentation required of each muscle. Recent advances in the use of artificial intelligence in medical imaging have enabled automated segmentation of cervical muscles [27]. Convolutional neural networks (CNN), in particular, permit a rapid and accurate quantification of MFI.

The purpose of this study was to examine 1) muscle degeneration as MFI of the cervical muscles in patients with DCM compared to healthy controls, 2) associations between MFI and clinical disability; and 3) to demonstrate implementation of a recently developed multi-muscle CNN model to segment seven bilateral cervical muscles and quantify MFI. We hypothesized that patients with DCM will have elevated MFI in deep cervical flexors and extensors and increased MFI will relate to worse myelopathy and clinical dysfunction.

Material and methods

Participants

Eighteen patients with DCM (8F/10M, 58.6 ±14.0 years) were recruited from a single academic spine practice. Patients were included if they presented with clinical symptoms of cervical myelopathy such as upper extremity weakness, sensory loss, a lack of hand or leg coordination, or gait instability, in combination with radiographic signs of spinal cord compression. Patients with other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, spinal tumors or trauma, diabetes, peripheral or vascular neuropathies, or a history of spinal injury or other surgery were excluded. Twenty-five age and sex matched healthy controls (12F/13M, 52.6 ± 11.8 years) were recruited. In addition to the exclusion criteria for patients, controls were screened for current spinal conditions, neck pain or other neurological deficits. Apart from these 43 participants, 6 additional participants were excluded from the analysis due to MRI artifacts during image acquisition- misprescribed field of view [4] and fat-water swapping [2]. All participants provided written informed consent as approved by the Northwestern University institutional review board. A subset of these participants was examined in our preliminary study [14].

Clinical and Health Related Quality of Life Scores (HRQOL)

All participants completed two commonly used clinical scales for myelopathy- mJOA and Nurick. The mJOA scale (ranging from 0–18) assesses sensorimotor dysfunction in upper and lower extremity [28] and the Nurick scale (ranging from 0–4) evaluates ambulatory status [29]. Health related quality of life questionnaires were assessed: Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain and discomfort, pain interference scale (Pain6a), and Health and Well-Being survey- SF-36 physical (SF-36P) component scores. The NDI evaluates neck pain and its effect on activities of daily living [30]. The NRS scale quantifies pain and discomfort on a scale of 0–10, where 0 = no discomfort/pain, 10 = extreme discomfort/pain [31]. Health and Well-Being survey- SF-36 measures bodily pain, restrictions in physical function and general health due to health problems [32].

A subset of 11 patients with DCM completed these questionnaires at their 6-month follow-up after cervical decompression surgery. In these patients, recovery rate was calculated as (Change in mJOA/(18- Pre-op) *100 [33].

MRI acquisition and assessment

Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine using a 3.0 T Siemens (Erlangen, Germany) Prisma scanner. A 64 channel head [40] and a neck coil [24] were used to acquire high-resolution 3D fat-water images of the cervical and upper thoracic spine (C2-T1) with a dual-echo gradient-echo FLASH sequence (2-point Dixon, TR = 6.59 ms, TE1 = 2.45 ms, TE2 = 3.68 ms, flip angle = 12°, field-of-view = 190 mm × 320 mm, slab oversampling of 22% with 36 partitions to prevent aliasing in the superior- inferior direction, in-plane resolution = 0.7 mm × 0.7 mm, slice thickness = 3.0 mm, number of averages = 6, acquisition time = 4 min 23 s).

Automated segmentation of the seven bilateral cervical muscle group was performed using a recently trained dense V-net CNN model and the in-phase and out-of-phase images. The model was run using the NiftyNet (Version 0.6.0) open-source deep-learning platform built on TensorFlow (Version 1.15) in Python (Version 3.6) [34,35]. The CNN demonstrated high accuracy and excellent reliability (ICC2,1 > 0.800) for the MFI measures of all muscle groups in an independent testing dataset. The mean absolute error and root mean squared error in MFI measures was less than 2.0% and 3.0%, respectively. The CNN reduces the time to segment a single dataset from 4 to 8 hours down to only seconds (Weber et. al., in review). MFI was calculated as the fat signal/(fat signal + water signal) × 100 using the mean fat and water signal from each of the muscle segmentations. MFI metrics were extracted for the following cervical muscle groups- left and right multifidus and semispinalis cervicis (MFSS), longus colli and longus capitis (LC), semispinalis capitis (SSCap), splenius capitis (SPCap), levator scapula, (LS), sternocleidomastoid (SCM), and trapezius (TR) [Fig 1]. The average MFI of left and right muscles of each muscle group was used for further analysis.

Fig 1. Example renderings of the cervical spine muscle segmentations.

Fig 1

We used a previously developed convolutional neural network (CNN) to segment seven bilateral cervical muscles (14 muscles total). Example segmentations from a randomly selected DCM participant are shown. a) Two-dimensional renderings of the cervical spine segmentations at the C3 through C7 vertebral levels overlaid the axial water images. b) Three-dimensional renderings of the cervical spine muscle segmentations. The muscle groups segmented included the MFSS (left = red, right = yellow, LC (left = light blue, right = light green), SSCap (left = beige, right = purple), SPCap (left = dark pink, right = orange), LS (left = light pink, right = light gray), SCM (left = dark gray, right = brown), and TR (left = dark blue, right = dark green). L = left, R = right, A = anterior, P = posterior, S = superior, I = inferior. MFSS = multifidus and semispinalis cervicis, LC = longus colli and longus capitis, SSCap = semispinalis capitis, SPCap = splenius capitis, LS = levator scapula, SCM = sternocleidomastoid, TR = trapezius.

Statistical analysis

Normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test [36]. One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to evaluate significant differences in MFI between subject groups with age, sex, and BMI as covariates. Severity of symptoms was defined using mJOA groups- Normal (mJOA = 18), Mild (mJOA = 17, 16 or 15), Moderate (mJOA = 14, 13, 12) [37]. One-way ANCOVA was conducted to assess significant differences in MFI between mJOA groups and Nurick scores controlling for age, sex and BMI in the model. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the association between clinical or HRQOL scores (mJOA, Nurick, Neck NRS, Arm NRS, NDI, Pain6a, SF-36P) and MFI. Paired sample t-tests were conducted to assess improvement in clinical and HRQOL scores, and Spearman’s correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between clinical scores post-surgery and pre-surgical MFI. Statistical tests were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) and significance was set at p≤ 0.05.

Results

Participant characteristics- demographic, clinical & HRQOL scores

The patient cohort consisted of 18 subjects (8 females and 10 males) while the control group consisted of 25 subjects (12 females and 13 males); Female: Male (8F:10M) vs (12F:13M) (X2(1) = 0.053, p = 0.818), mean ages 58.6 ± 14.2 years vs 52.6 ± 11.8 years (p = 0.144), mean BMI 26.0 ± 4.1 kg/m2 vs 25.2 ± 3.7 kg/m2 (p = 0.523) respectively. Patients had lower mJOA scores (14.7 ± 1.6, ranging from 12–17 vs 18.0 ± 0, p<0.001), higher Nurick (1.8 ± 0.9, ranging from 1–4 vs 0 ± 0, p<0.001), neck discomfort (4.4 ± 1.8 vs 0.2 ± 0.6, p<0.001), arm discomfort (3.6 ± 2.9 vs 0.2 ± 0.4, p<0.001), NDI (16.89 ± 7.50 vs 1.24 ± 2.05, p<0.001) and Pain-6a (61.02 ± 5.53 vs 41.84 ± 3.68, p<0.001); and lower SF-36P (38.87 ± 9.09 vs 56.49 ± 4.30, p<0.001) as compared to controls [Table 1].

Table 1. Participant’s demographic, clinical and HRQOL characteristics.

Subjects Sex Age (years) BMI (kg/m2) mJOA Nurick Neck NRS Arm NRS NDI Pain6a SF-36P
Controls 12F
13M
52.6 (11.8) 25.2 (3.7) 18.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.4) 1.24 (2.05) 61.02 (5.53) 56.49 (4.30)
Patients 8F
10M
58.6 (14.2) 26.0 (4.1) 14.7 (1.6) 1.8 (0.9) 4.4 (1.8) 3.6 (2.9) 16.89 (7.50) 41.84 (3.68) 38.87 (9.09)
p-value 0.818 0.144 0.523 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

BMI = Body Mass Index, mJOA = modified Japanese Orthopedic Association, NRS = Numerical Rating Scale, Pain6a = Pain Interference Scale, NDI = Neck Disability Index, SF-36P = Health and well-being survey (physical component score).

Mean (SD) and p-value are reported.

Muscle fat infiltration and its association with clinical and HRQOL scores

Muscle fat infiltration in the deeper cervical muscle groups such as MFSS, and LC differed significantly between patients with DCM and healthy controls. Specifically, patients with DCM had significantly higher MFI in LC as compared to controls (Right LC- 18.57 ± 7.01 vs 13.27 ± 4.74, p = 0.010, Left LC- 18.91 ± 7.38 vs 14.04 ± 5.20, p = 0.023, Mean LC- 18.74 ± 6.7 vs 13.66 ± 4.91; F (1, 38) = 5.81, p = 0.021, partial η2 = 0.133) after controlling for age, sex and BMI (covariates evaluated at age = 55.12, sex = 0.53 and BMI = 25.50) [Fig 2a]. There was a statistically significant between-subject effect of age (F (1, 38) = 17.19, p<0.001, partial η2 = 0.311) and BMI (F(1, 38) = 6.82, p = 0.013, partial η2 = 0.152) but not sex (F(1, 38) = 1.31, p = 0.260, partial η2 = 0.033) on MFI. Similarly, patients with DCM had significantly higher MFI in MFSS as compared to controls (Right MFSS- 20.58 ± 5.84 vs 16.88 ± 5.34, p = 0.046, Left MFSS- 20.69 ± 5.27 vs 17.20 ± 5.31, p = 0.048, Mean MFSS- 20.63 ±5.43 vs 17.04 ± 5.24; F(1, 35) = 1.38, p = 0.043, partial η2 = 0.138) after controlling for age, sex and BMI (covariates evaluated at age = 55.75, sex = 0.50 and BMI = 25.47) [Fig 2b]. There was a statistically significant between-subject effect of age (F (1, 35) = 11.35, p = 0.002, partial η2 = 0.245) and BMI (F (1, 35) = 9.80, p = 0.004, partial η2 = 0.219) but not sex (F (1, 35) = 1.67, p = 0.205, partial η2 = 0.046) on MFI.

Fig 2. Mean group differences in MFI.

Fig 2

a) MFI in cervical flexors (LC) between patients with DCM and controls; b) MFI in cervical extensors (MFSS) between patients with DCM and controls. Mean (SE) are reported. * denotes significance at p≤0.05. MFI = muscle fat infiltration, LC = longus colli and longus capitis, MFSS = multifidus and semispinalis cervicis.

There were no significant differences in MFI levels between patients with DCM and controls in SPCap (8.91 ± 4.78 vs 8.05 ± 4.74, (p = 0.562)), SSCap (15.58 ± 5.15 vs 14.22 ± 4.92, (p = 0.385)), SCM (8.70 ± 4.90 vs 6.81 ± 3.88, (p = 0.164)), TR (6.66 ± 4.09 vs 5.45 ± 4.14, (p = 0.344)), and LS (5.35 ± 3.50 vs 4.68 ± 3.48, (p = 0.541)) muscle groups [Table 2].

Table 2. Muscle fat infiltration in seven cervical muscle groups.

MFSS LC SPCap SSCap SCM TR LS
Controls 17.04 (5.24) 13.66 (4.91) 8.05 (4.74) 14.22 (4.92) 6.81 (3.88) 5.45 (4.14) 4.68 (3.48)
Patients 20.63 (5.43) 18.74 (6.70) 8.91 (4.78) 15.58 (5.15) 8.70 (4.90) 6.66 (4.09) 5.35 (3.50)
p-value 0.043 0.021 0.562 0.385 0.164 0.344 0.5S41

MFSS = multifidus and semispinalis cervicis, LC = longus colli and longus capitis, SSCap = semispinalis capitis, SPCap = splenius capitis, LS = levator scapula, SCM = sternocleidomastoid, TR = trapezius.

Mean (SD) and p-values are reported.

Increased MFI was significantly associated with clinical disability, pain, and physical dysfunction. Patients with elevated Nurick scores had significantly higher MFI in LC (Spearman’s ρ = 0.436 (p = 0.003)), (F (3, 36) = 3.53, p = 0.024, partial η2 = 0.228) [Fig 3a]. Patients with lower mJOA scores had significantly higher MFI in LC (Spearman’s ρ = -0.399 (p = 0.008)). Healthy controls (mJOA = 18, MFI- LC = 13.65 ± 4.90) had lower MFI than patients with mild disability (17 ≥ mJOA ≥ 15, MFI- LC = 18.48 ± 7.52) and moderate disability (14 ≥ mJOA ≥12, MFI- LC = 19.0 ± 6.25), (F (2, 37) = 3.60, p = 0.037, partial η2 = 0.163) after adjusting for age, sex and BMI (covariates evaluated at age = 55.12, sex = 0.53, BMI = 25.50) [Fig 3b]. Increased MFI in MFSS were significantly associated with increasing Nurick scores (ρ = 0.341 (p = 0.031)) and decreasing mJOA scores (ρ = -0.332 (p = 0.036)). Similar associations were observed between MFI and HRQOL scores such as NDI (ρ = 0.432 (p = 0.004)), Pain6a (ρ = 0.335 (p = 0.035)), and SF36-P (ρ = -0.420 (p = 0.026)) [Table 3]. Age and BMI had a significant association with MFI in both healthy controls and patients with DCM. Specifically, MFI levels increased with increasing age and BMI in both groups [Fig 4a and 4b].

Fig 3. Association between MFI and clinical scores.

Fig 3

Mean group differences in MFI across varying severity of clinical disability in patients with DCM as measured by a) Nurick (Grade 0—IV), and b) mJOA groups (Normal = 18, Mild = 17–15, and moderate = 14–12). Mean (SE) are reported. * denotes significance at p≤0.05. MFI = muscle fat infiltration, LC = longus colli and longus capitis, mJOA = modified Japanese Orthopedic Association.

Table 3. Association between muscle fat infiltration, clinical and HRQOL scores.

mJOA Nurick NDI Neck NRS Arm NRS Pain6a SF-36P
MFI (MFSS) -0.332 (0.036) 0.341 (0.031) 0.346 (0.029) 0.301 (0.059) 0.302 (0.060) 0.335 (0.035) -0.420 (0.026)
MFI (LC) -0.399 (0.008) 0.436 (0.003) 0.432 (0.004) 0.378 (0.012) 0.420 (0.005) 0.557 (0.001) -0.465 (0.008)

MFI = Muscle Fat Infiltration, MFSS = multifidus and semispinalis cervicis, LC = longus colli and longus capitis, mJOA = modified Japanese Orthopedic Association, NDI = Neck Disability Index, NRS = Numerical Rating Scale, Pain6a = Pain Interference Scale, SF-36P = Health and well-being survey (physical component score).

Spearman’s ρ (p-value) are reported.

Fig 4. Association between MFI and demographic characteristics.

Fig 4

Scatterplots depicting the relationship between a) MFI and age in patients with DCM and controls; b) MFI and BMI in patients with DCM and Controls. MFI = muscle fat infiltration, BMI = body mass index.

Association with post-surgical recovery

A subset of subjects consisting of 11 patients (4 females and 7 males) with DCM that completed follow up testing after decompression surgery had a mean age of 55.10 ± 15.37 years (ranging from 25–74 years) and BMI of 25.26 ± 3.94 kg/m2. Patients demonstrated significant improvement in their clinical disability after surgery. Nurick scores decreased (0.73 ± 0.65 vs 1.73 ± 0.91, p = 0.004) and mJOA scores increased (14.82 ± 1.90 vs 16.00 ± 1.94, p = 0.029). Higher MFI in LC pre-surgery was associated with post-surgical recovery rate of Nurick (ρ = -0.664 (p = 0.026)) [Fig 5a] and mJOA (ρ = -0.603 (p = 0.049). Similarly, patients who demonstrated ≥50% recovery in mJOA scores had lower MFI (LC) than those with <50% recovery (14.03 ± 7.27 vs 21.09 ±1.28, p = 0.043) [Fig 5b]. However, MFI levels in MFSS before surgery were not associated with post-surgical improvement in Nurick (ρ = 0.139 (p = 0.683)) and mJOA scores (ρ = 0.255 (p = 0.449)).

Fig 5. Association between pre-surgical MFI and post-surgical functional improvement in clinical disability.

Fig 5

a) Scatterplot depicting relation between MFI and Nurick recovery rate, Spearman’s ρ is reported; b) Mean group differences in MFI across mJOA recovery rate dichotomized as <50% and ≥50%. Mean (SE) are reported. * denotes significance at p≤0.05. MFI = muscle fat infiltration, LC = longus colli and longus capitis, mJOA = modified Japanese Orthopedic Association.

Discussion

In this study, we demonstrate that 1a) patients with DCM have higher MFI in deep cervical flexors and extensors as compared to age-and-sex matched healthy controls, 1b) there were no significant group differences in MFI within the more superficial muscles (SPCap, SSCap, SCM, TR, and LS), 2) increased MFI in cervical muscles is associated with higher levels of clinical disability before and after surgery, and 3) multi-muscle segmentation model, a recently developed deep learning CNN can be applied for automated quantification of MFI in patients with DCM. The findings of this study may be useful in understanding underlying pathological mechanisms that drive injury and clinical dysfunction in DCM. It may also help explain the specific sensorimotor deficits commonly observed in patients with comparable radiographic spinal cord compression [6,7]. MRI findings of altered muscle adiposity are present across a number of spinal pathologies. For example, patients with severe WAD have higher MFI in cervical flexors and extensors as compared to healthy controls and patients with mild/moderate WAD [1519]. Elevated levels of MFI in chronic whiplash may be reduced through a regimen of neck specific exercises [38]. These changes in muscle composition occur concurrently with decreases in neck disability and increases in muscle strength. In patients with disc degeneration and low back pain, patients with lower MFI in multifidus muscles before total disc replacement surgery had better post-surgical outcomes [39], which is similar to the rotator cuff injury literature [4042].

These studies suggest that MFI may be an important pathophysiological marker in variety of conditions affecting the appendicular skeleton and the axial spine such as rotator cuff injury [4042], WAD [1519], disc herniation [43,44], degenerative disc disease [45], and DCM [14], respectively. However, studies on comprehensive examination of cervical muscle composition and its effects on symptomology, diagnostic, and prognostic utility in patients in DCM are limited.

Changes in muscle composition such as increased MFI of the deep, not superficial, flexors and extensors may have direct implications on the function of the cervical spine muscles and mechanics. Deep neck flexors and extensors provide physical support to the spine vertebral column and play an important role in postural biomechanics, proprioception, and fine motor control [46,47]. Additionally, patients with DCM often present with cervical sagittal vertical misalignment resulting in forward head posture (FHP) [48,49], which could reflect excessive loading on a weakened muscular system. Biomechanical modeling of increasing FHP and its influence on cervical muscles showed significant lengthening of the cervical extensors such as MFSS and shortening of the cervical flexors such as LC. As a result of sustained contractions, cervical extensor muscles may weaken [50] and could likely fatigue. Prolonged shortening of the cervical flexors may contribute to generalized disuse atrophy and increased MFI [17,51]. Muscle denervation due to spinal cord compression, and the accompanied increased fatty infiltration, may further diminish the capacity of cervical muscles to maintain dynamic posture and tolerate corresponding biomechanical stresses. Sarcopenia refers to loss of muscle mass and function, is a key part of frailty in the elderly [52]. Numerous studies have shown that increased frailty is associated with adverse clinical outcomes after spine surgery in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury [53], degenerative spine diseases [5456], and DCM [57]. In this study we found that increased MFI is associated with increasing pain and clinical disability as measured by Nurick, mJOA, Neck NRS, and NDI scores. These findings are consistent with the aforementioned literature and validate the impact of muscle composition and quality on the nature/causes of impairment and clinical dysfunction in patients with DCM. In older adults with disability, fatty infiltration in skeletal muscles may be decreased through physical exercise [20,58]. In chronic WAD, MFI in cervical multifidus was reduced after 10 weeks of neck specific exercises [38]. Similarly, neck specific exercises such as flexor/extensor training may be useful in improving clinical outcomes in patients with DCM and MFI may be a modifiable biomarker for therapeutic interventions.

Changes in fat infiltration may occur with increasing age as lean body mass decreases and body adiposity increases [59]. Our findings demonstrate increase in MFI with increasing age and BMI both in healthy controls and patients. However, statistically significant differences in MFI between groups persisted even after controlling for age and BMI. Therefore, we consider our finding of increased MFI in patients with DCM as a pathological and clinically important change in muscle composition.

In patients with DCM, surgical decompression shows variable and limited neurological improvement [60]; surgical interventions combined with conservative rehabilitation show clinical equipoise [6163]. We previously demonstrated that increased demyelination (lower magnetization transfer ratios (MTR)) in anterior and lateral cord regions and descending motor tracts such as corticospinal, reticulospinal tracts are associated with poor functional recovery after surgery [64]. Sarcopenia in deep cervical flexors (LC) has been shown to predict poor post-surgical improvement in clinical function in patients with myelopathy [65]. In this study, our preliminary analysis evaluating MFI and post-surgical functional recovery showed that increased pre-surgical MFI in LC muscles is adversely related to post-surgical improvement in clinical scores of mJOA and Nurick. It can be hypothesized that cervical flexor training before and after surgery may promote surgical outcomes and MFI could be a predictive biomarker for better prognosis. However, further large sample investigations are needed to understand and confirm the role of cervical musculature in neurological functional recovery and evaluate the utility of fat-water imaging and MFI in predicting surgical outcome in DCM.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence techniques have led to development of automated tools and application of machine learning algorithms in the field of spinal imaging [27,66,67]. In this study, we utilize a recently developed CNN model that segments seven bilateral cervical muscle groups (14 muscles in total) and measures muscle composition in each muscle group (Weber et. al., in review). This CNN was validated in patients with WAD and shown to be highly time efficient as compared to manual segmentation (drawing regions of interest), accurate and reliable for MFI measures (when tested against different human raters). Conventional MRI techniques (T1, T2 weighted imaging) are excellent in detailed visualization of spinal anatomy in spinal diseases such as DCM, however they do not provide information about specific neuropathophysiological processes such as demyelination, axonal and neuronal loss [68]. Advanced MR techniques such as diffusion tensor, myelin-water, magnetization transfer and fat-water imaging provide several useful quantitative markers of spinal cord injury. Although these MRI based metrics are shown to be associated with clinical impairment and show diagnostic and predictive utility, their translation to clinical use has not been realized [69]. Development and application of CNN models such as the one implemented in this study will be essential to enhance future efficiency and clinical implementation of quantitative MRI techniques.

We acknowledge there are limitations in our study. Firstly, while we have controlled our analysis for confounders such as age, sex, and BMI in assessing differences in MFI; composition of the cervical musculature may also be influenced by other factors such as total lean body mass, physical activity, or neck-specific exercise levels. Secondly, quantification of MFI depends on the accuracy of segmentation of the muscles by the implemented CNN, and subtle differences in field of view during MRI acquisition may affect definition of the muscle boundaries. To address this limitation, we visually screened our database to identify and exclude any such dataset where the CNN may have performed inaccurately. Thirdly, demyelination of the spinal cord regions and white matter tracts may be a prominent pathomechanism in DCM. Here, we studied the role of increased MFI on DCM symptomology in isolation. Additionally, cervical spine misalignment is associated with neck disability in patients with DCM [70], however this study did not control for differences in spinal alignment between participant groups. Future studies that evaluate cumulative impact of cervical spine alignment with cord compression, demyelination, and muscle adiposity are needed as this work shows the early associations that may warrant further investigation. Lastly, while we aimed to include patients with varying degrees of cervical myelopathy, participation of patients with severe myelopathy may be limited due to severity of clinical disability or urgent need of therapeutic interventions.

Conclusion

Compared to healthy controls, patients with DCM have increased fat infiltration in deep cervical flexors and extensor muscles. These adverse changes in muscle composition associate with sensorimotor deficits, physical function, pain, and disability both before and after surgery. MFI could be a potential biomarker for patient assessments, better candidate selection for surgery and prognosis. Future investigations focusing on predictive utility of fat water imaging should compare differential recovery among patients with DCM after surgery. Secondly, this study demonstrates the novel application of machine learning in medical imaging, specifically in automated segmentation of muscles across the cervical spine and quantification of MRI based metric of muscle composition (MFI). We build upon our previous work [14] utilizing this multi-muscle model that can be easily applied to the cervical spine in DCM and other pathologies. Implementation of machine learning could facilitate translation of MRI metrics such as MFI that are otherwise limited to research environments, into clinical practice.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

Zachary A. Smith received funding from the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke (grant K23NS104211). Kenneth A. Weber II received funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grants K23NS104211, L30NS108301 and R03HD094577). Andrew C. Smith received funding from National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant R03HD094577). Sean Mackey received funding from National Institute of Drug Abuse (grant K24DA029262). James M. Elliott received funding from National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grants R01HD079076-01 and R03HD094577). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Epidemiology, Genetics, and Pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(12):E675–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bakhsheshian J, Mehta VA, Liu JC. Current Diagnosis and Management of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Global Spine J. 2017;7(6):572–86. doi: 10.1177/2192568217699208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscientist. 2013;19(4):409–21. doi: 10.1177/1073858412467377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Karadimas SK, Gatzounis G, Fehlings MG. Pathobiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2015;24 Suppl 2:132–8. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3264-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Patil PG, Turner DA, Pietrobon R. National trends in surgical procedures for degenerative cervical spine disease: 1990–2000. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(4):753–8; discussion -8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ichihara K, Taguchi T, Sakuramoto I, Kawano S, Kawai S. Mechanism of the spinal cord injury and the cervical spondylotic myelopathy: new approach based on the mechanical features of the spinal cord white and gray matter. J Neurosurg. 2003;99(3 Suppl):278–85. doi: 10.3171/spi.2003.99.3.0278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wen CY, Cui JL, Mak KC, Luk KD, Hu Y. Diffusion tensor imaging of somatosensory tract in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and its link with electrophysiological evaluation. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1493–500. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhang JT, Wang LF, Wang S, Li J, Shen Y. Risk factors for poor outcome of surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spinal Cord. 2016;54(12):1127–31. doi: 10.1038/sc.2016.64 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hopkins BS, Weber KA 2nd, Cloney MB, Paliwal M, Parrish TB, Smith ZA. Tract-Specific Volume Loss on 3T MRI in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(20):E1204–e9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cloney MB, Smith ZA, Weber KA 2nd, Parrish TB. Quantitative Magnetization Transfer MRI Measurements of the Anterior Spinal Cord Region are Associated With Clinical Outcomes in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(10):675–80. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Liu H, MacMillian EL, Jutzeler CR, Ljungberg E, MacKay AL, Kolind SH, et al. Assessing structure and function of myelin in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: Evidence of demyelination. Neurology. 2017;89(6):602–10. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Suleiman LI, Weber KA 2nd, Rosenthal BD, Bhatt SA, Savage JW, Hsu WK, et al. High-resolution magnetization transfer MRI in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;51:57–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2018.02.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Smith ZA, Weber KA 2nd, Paliwal M, Hopkins BS, Barry AJ, Cantrell D, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Atlas-Based Volumetric Mapping of the Cervical Cord Gray Matter in Cervical Canal Stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2020;134:e497–e504. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.10.109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cloney M, Smith AC, Coffey T, Paliwal M, Dhaher Y, Parrish T, et al. Fatty infiltration of the cervical multifidus musculature and their clinical correlates in spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;57:208–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2018.03.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Elliott JM, Smith AC, Hoggarth MA, Albin SR, Weber KA 2nd, Haager M, et al. Muscle fat infiltration following whiplash: A computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging comparison. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0234061. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Smith AC, Parrish TB, Hoggarth MA, McPherson JG, Tysseling VM, Wasielewski M, et al. Potential associations between chronic whiplash and incomplete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2015;1:15024. doi: 10.1038/scsandc.2015.24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Elliott JM, O’Leary S, Sterling M, Hendrikz J, Pedler A, Jull G. Magnetic resonance imaging findings of fatty infiltrate in the cervical flexors in chronic whiplash. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(9):948–54. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bb0e55 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Elliott J, Jull G, Noteboom JT, Darnell R, Galloway G, Gibbon WW. Fatty infiltration in the cervical extensor muscles in persistent whiplash-associated disorders: a magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(22):E847–55. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000240841.07050.34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Smith AC, Albin SR, Abbott R, Crawford RJ, Hoggarth MA, Wasielewski M, et al. Confirming the geography of fatty infiltration in the deep cervical extensor muscles in whiplash recovery. Scientific Reports. 2020;10(1):11471. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-68452-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Marcus RL, Addison O, Kidde JP, Dibble LE, Lastayo PC. Skeletal muscle fat infiltration: impact of age, inactivity, and exercise. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;14(5):362–6. doi: 10.1007/s12603-010-0081-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Elliott JM, Parrish TB, Walton DM, Vassallo AJ, Fundaun J, Wasielewski M, et al. Does Overall Cervical Spine Pathology Relate to the Clinical Heterogeneity of Chronic Whiplash? Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38(5):869–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.06.052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fleckenstein JL, Watumull D, Conner KE, Ezaki M, Greenlee RG Jr., Bryan WW, et al. Denervated human skeletal muscle: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1993;187(1):213–8. doi: 10.1148/radiology.187.1.8451416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hodges P, Holm AK, Hansson T, Holm S. Rapid Atrophy of the Lumbar Multifidus Follows Experimental Disc or Nerve Root Injury. Spine. 2006;31(25). doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000248453.51165.0b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dulor JP, Cambon B, Vigneron P, Reyne Y, Nouguès J, Casteilla L, et al. Expression of specific white adipose tissue genes in denervation-induced skeletal muscle fatty degeneration. FEBS Lett. 1998;439(1–2):89–92. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(98)01216-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Blomgren J, Strandell E, Jull G, Vikman I, Röijezon U. Effects of deep cervical flexor training on impaired physiological functions associated with chronic neck pain: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):415. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2324-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Suvarnnato T, Puntumetakul R, Uthaikhup S, Boucaut R. Effect of specific deep cervical muscle exercises on functional disability, pain intensity, craniovertebral angle, and neck-muscle strength in chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Res. 2019;12:915–25. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S190125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Weber KA, Smith AC, Wasielewski M, Eghtesad K, Upadhyayula PA, Wintermark M, et al. Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for the Automatic Quantification of Muscle Fat Infiltration Following Whiplash Injury. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):7973. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44416-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nagata K, Yoshimura N, Hashizume H, Muraki S, Ishimoto Y, Yamada H, et al. The prevalence of cervical myelopathy among subjects with narrow cervical spinal canal in a population-based magnetic resonance imaging study: the Wakayama Spine Study. Spine J. 2014;14(12):2811–7. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95(1):87–100. doi: 10.1093/brain/95.1.87 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Walton DM, Elliott JM, Salim S, Al-Nasri I. A reconceptualization of the pain numeric rating scale: Anchors and clinically important differences. J Hand Ther. 2018;31(2):179–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2017.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ware JE Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981;6(4):354–64. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198107000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gibson E, Giganti F, Hu Y, Bonmati E, Bandula S, Gurusamy K, et al. Automatic Multi-Organ Segmentation on Abdominal CT With Dense V-Networks. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2018;37(8):1822–34. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2018.2806309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gibson E, Li W, Sudre C, Fidon L, Shakir DI, Wang G, et al. NiftyNet: a deep-learning platform for medical imaging. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2018;158:113–22. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.01.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2012;10(2):486–9. doi: 10.5812/ijem.3505 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Nouri A, Arnold P, Barbagallo G, Bartels R, et al. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale: establishing criteria for mild, moderate and severe impairment in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(1):78–84. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4660-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.O’Leary S, Jull G, Van Wyk L, Pedler A, Elliott J. Morphological changes in the cervical muscles of women with chronic whiplash can be modified with exercise-A pilot study. Muscle Nerve. 2015;52(5):772–9. doi: 10.1002/mus.24612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Storheim K, Berg L, Hellum C, Gjertsen Ø, Neckelmann G, Espeland A, et al. Fat in the lumbar multifidus muscles - predictive value and change following disc prosthesis surgery and multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: 2-year follow-up of a randomized trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1505-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lansdown DA, Lee S, Sam C, Krug R, Feeley BT, Ma CB. A Prospective, Quantitative Evaluation of Fatty Infiltration Before and After Rotator Cuff Repair. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(7):2325967117718537. doi: 10.1177/2325967117718537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Valencia AP, Lai JK, Iyer SR, Mistretta KL, Spangenburg EE, Davis DL, et al. Fatty Infiltration Is a Prognostic Marker of Muscle Function After Rotator Cuff Tear. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018;46(9):2161–9. doi: 10.1177/0363546518769267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Melis B, Nemoz C, Walch G. Muscle fatty infiltration in rotator cuff tears: descriptive analysis of 1688 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95(5):319–24. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fortin M, Lazáry À, Varga PP, McCall I, Battié MC. Paraspinal muscle asymmetry and fat infiltration in patients with symptomatic disc herniation. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(5):1452–9. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4503-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Colakoglu B, Alis D. Evaluation of lumbar multifidus muscle in patients with lumbar disc herniation: are complex quantitative MRI measurements needed? J Int Med Res. 2019;47(8):3590–600. doi: 10.1177/0300060519853430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Urrutia J, Besa P, Lobos D, Campos M, Arrieta C, Andia M, et al. Lumbar paraspinal muscle fat infiltration is independently associated with sex, age, and inter-vertebral disc degeneration in symptomatic patients. Skeletal Radiol. 2018;47(7):955–61. doi: 10.1007/s00256-018-2880-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Boyd-Clark LC, Briggs CA, Galea MP. Muscle spindle distribution, morphology, and density in longus colli and multifidus muscles of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(7):694–701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mayoux-Benhamou MA, Revel M, Vallée C, Roudier R, Barbet JP, Bargy F. Longus colli has a postural function on cervical curvature. Surg Radiol Anat. 1994;16(4):367–71. doi: 10.1007/BF01627655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, Schwab FJ, Le Huec JC, Massicotte EM, et al. Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S149–60. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mohanty C, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG, Shamji MF. Association of preoperative cervical spine alignment with spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging hyperintensity and myelopathy severity: analysis of a series of 124 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(1):11–6. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000670 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Khayatzadeh S, Kalmanson OA, Schuit D, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Ghanayem AJ, et al. Cervical Spine Muscle-Tendon Unit Length Differences Between Neutral and Forward Head Postures: Biomechanical Study Using Human Cadaveric Specimens. Physical Therapy. 2017;97(7):756–66. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzx040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bodine SC. Disuse-induced muscle wasting. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2013;45(10):2200–8. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2013.06.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Morley JE. Frailty and sarcopenia in elderly. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift. 2016;128(7):439–45. doi: 10.1007/s00508-016-1087-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Banaszek D, Inglis T, Marion TE, Charest-Morin R, Moskven E, Rivers CS, et al. Effect of Frailty on Outcome after Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(6):839–45. doi: 10.1089/neu.2019.6581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Flexman AM, Charest-Morin R, Stobart L, Street J, Ryerson CJ. Frailty and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative spine disease. Spine J. 2016;16(11):1315–23. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.06.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Park S, Kim HJ, Ko BG, Chung JW, Kim SH, Park SH, et al. The prevalence and impact of sarcopenia on degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-b(8):1093–8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37623 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Inose H, Yamada T, Hirai T, Yoshii T, Abe Y, Okawa A. The impact of sarcopenia on the results of lumbar spinal surgery. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2018;4(1):33–6. doi: 10.1016/j.afos.2018.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wilson JRF, Badhiwala JH, Moghaddamjou A, Yee A, Wilson JR, Fehlings MG. Frailty Is a Better Predictor than Age of Mortality and Perioperative Complications after Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Analysis of 41,369 Patients from the NSQIP Database 2010–2018. J Clin Med. 2020;9(11). doi: 10.3390/jcm9113491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Goodpaster BH, Chomentowski P, Ward BK, Rossi A, Glynn NW, Delmonico MJ, et al. Effects of physical activity on strength and skeletal muscle fat infiltration in older adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2008;105(5):1498–503. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.90425.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Forbes GB, Reina JC. Adult lean body mass declines with age: some longitudinal observations. Metabolism. 1970;19(9):653–63. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(70)90062-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Shiban E, Meyer B. Treatment considerations of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurol Clin Pract. 2014;4(4):296–303. doi: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Rhee J, Tetreault LA, Chapman JR, Wilson JR, Smith JS, Martin AR, et al. Nonoperative Versus Operative Management for the Treatment Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Updated Systematic Review. Global Spine J. 2017;7(3 Suppl):35s–41s. doi: 10.1177/2192568217703083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kong LD, Meng LC, Wang LF, Shen Y, Wang P, Shang ZK. Evaluation of conservative treatment and timing of surgical intervention for mild forms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Exp Ther Med. 2013;6(3):852–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kadaňka Z, Bednařík J, Novotný O, Urbánek I, Dušek L. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: conservative versus surgical treatment after 10 years. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(9):1533–8. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1811-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Paliwal M, Weber KA 2nd, Hopkins BS, Cantrell DR, Hoggarth MA, Elliott JM, et al. Magnetization Transfer Ratio and Morphometrics of the Spinal Cord Associates with Surgical Recovery in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. World Neurosurg. 2020;144:e939–e47. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.09.148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Thakar S, Arun AA, Aryan S, Mohan D, Hegde AS. Deep flexor sarcopenia as a predictor of poor functional outcome after anterior cervical discectomy in patients with myelopathy. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019;161(10):2201–9. doi: 10.1007/s00701-019-03972-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Azimi P, Yazdanian T, Benzel EC, Aghaei HN, Azhari S, Sadeghi S, et al. A Review on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Spinal Diseases. Asian Spine J. 2020;14(4):543–71. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hopkins BS, Weber KA 2nd, Kesavabhotla K, Paliwal M, Cantrell DR, Smith ZA. Machine Learning for the Prediction of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Post Hoc Pilot Study of 28 Participants. World Neurosurg. 2019;127:e436–e42. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Nouri A, Martin AR, Mikulis D, Fehlings MG. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy: a review of structural changes and measurement techniques. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40(6):E5. doi: 10.3171/2016.3.FOCUS1667 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Martin AR, Aleksanderek I, Cohen-Adad J, Tarmohamed Z, Tetreault L, Smith N, et al. Translating state-of-the-art spinal cord MRI techniques to clinical use: A systematic review of clinical studies utilizing DTI, MT, MWF, MRS, and fMRI. Neuroimage Clin. 2016;10:192–238. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2015.11.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Iyer S, Nemani VM, Nguyen J, Elysee J, Burapachaisri A, Ames CP, et al. Impact of Cervical Sagittal Alignment Parameters on Neck Disability. Spine. 2016;41(5):371–7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jonathan H Sherman

4 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-15609

Fatty Infiltration in Cervical Flexors and Extensors in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Using a Multi-Muscle Segmentation Model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Paliwal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jonathan H Sherman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript looks at fatty infiltration of muscles in the neck in normal patients compared to patients with Cervical myelopathy and tries to assess any associations between amount of fatty infiltration and clinical disability as well as to determine if it predicts post surgical recovery.

They use 18 patients with DCM and 25 controls.

They look at fatty infiltration using MRI sequence with segmentation software

Clinical outcomes were measured with the modified Japanese orthopedic association scoring and Nurick

Introduction: well written and introduces topic clearly. Cleary lays out objectives of the study

Methods: The JoA scores seem high for the DCM group for the most part they seem like high functioning with little symptoms. Is this representative of patients with DCM? Anecdotally I see patients with much lower scores with this pathology and wonder if you would see bigger differences in more severe longstanding pathology.

In that same vein it would be important to determine if length of symptoms and how this factored in with MIF and recovery prediction. The failure of patients to improve may be related to how long the damage was present.

Discussion: Authors make is seem that they believe the MIF is the cause of the lack of clinical improvement. Doesn’t it make more sense that it is a symptom of damage and is merely a predictor of lack of improvement not a cause. In the discussion line 356-358 authors suggest that in addition to demyelination muscle composition may impact resolution of symptoms after therapeutic interventions. I realize they say may but I think that is still a pretty strong statement with no real evidence. I agree it is necessary to explore this question but it think exploration needs to be done before such a statement is made. but i think that statement should be softened a bit more.

Figures are easy to understand.

Also how different is this paper from the 2018 paper looking at MFI in multifidus musculature on the surface it seems very similar. authors should bring up older paper in introduction (if they do i missed it) and add how this advances that data.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting foundational work in attempting to use machine learning to assess differences in patients with CSM as compared to controls. The authors present their data clearly, but need to avoid any confusion of causation with association, which is not assessed by their study. For example, this statement in the conclusion is not supported: "Differences in MFI may explain the variability in clinical presentation of symptoms, augment assessments, inform interventions, and enhance healthcare received by patients with DCM" While the authors have only assessed CSM vs controls in this early foundational work, this has the potential to be clinically useful and I hope next steps for the authors will include utilizing this methodology to comparatively assess differential recovery amongst patients with CSM after surgery.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 25;16(6):e0253863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253863.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Jun 2021

Reviewer #1: This manuscript looks at fatty infiltration of muscles in the neck in normal patients compared to patients with Cervical myelopathy and tries to assess any associations between amount of fatty infiltration and clinical disability as well as to determine if it predicts post surgical recovery.

They use 18 patients with DCM and 25 controls.

They look at fatty infiltration using MRI sequence with segmentation software

Clinical outcomes were measured with the modified Japanese orthopedic association scoring and Nurick

Introduction: well written and introduces topic clearly. Cleary lays out objectives of the study

Methods: The JoA scores seem high for the DCM group for the most part they seem like high functioning with little symptoms. Is this representative of patients with DCM? Anecdotally I see patients with much lower scores with this pathology and wonder if you would see bigger differences in more severe longstanding pathology.

We thank the reviewer for this question. We agree the current group of patients is quite high functioning. We did not exclude severe disease. However, there were instances when patients presented with severe myelopathy and intervention was planned in an expeditious manner. We felt that waiting for an opening on MRI calendar date was likely not in the best interest of the patient. Secondly, many of these patients were also, quite anxious, and less amenable to the study. We know these are quite practical reasons, but we always tried to be respectful of the situation and clinical care. We list this as a limitation of our study in line 393-394.

Additionally, in patients with severe myelopathy, surgery is often beneficial. However, clinical decision making in the treatment of patients with mild compression is the most variable in clinical practices. With mild disease, there is nuance in understanding the associations between anatomic injury and both symptoms and recovery. We are hoping this is a small step forward in better understanding this group of patients.

In that same vein it would be important to determine if length of symptoms and how this factored in with MIF and recovery prediction. The failure of patients to improve may be related to how long the damage was present.

This is an excellent question. Cervical myelopathy, like many other musculoskeletal diseases, is a result of slowly progressing degenerative processes. While assessing patient histories, there was quite poor recall about the onset of symptoms. Therefore, we do not feel we can appropriately give an estimate of true symptom duration.

We are currently planning to study patients with mild disease who have are treated with conservative care to assess longitudinal changes in MFI.

Discussion: Authors make is seem that they believe the MIF is the cause of the lack of clinical improvement. Doesn’t it make more sense that it is a symptom of damage and is merely a predictor of lack of improvement not a cause. In the discussion line 356-358 authors suggest that in addition to demyelination muscle composition may impact resolution of symptoms after therapeutic interventions. I realize they say may but I think that is still a pretty strong statement with no real evidence. I agree it is necessary to explore this question but it think exploration needs to be done before such a statement is made. but i think that statement should be softened a bit more.

Figures are easy to understand.

We acknowledge this critique. We agree that MFI is only a predictor, and the current work shows an association with lack of clinical improvement. But we do not believe this work shows causation. We have revised the language reflects this.

We have removed statements on the impact of MFI on resolution of symptoms. We have modified discussion lines 356-359 as “In this study … pre-surgical MFI in LC muscles is adversely related to post-surgical improvement in clinical scores of mJOA and Nurick. It can be hypothesized that cervical flexor training before and after surgery may promote surgical outcomes …”.

Also how different is this paper from the 2018 paper looking at MFI in multifidus musculature on the surface it seems very similar. authors should bring up older paper in introduction (if they do i missed it) and add how this advances that data.

This work built upon our previous investigation. A small subset of these patients was previously studied (in 2018 paper) with a less robust technique (manual region of interest analysis for the multifidus muscle). We refer to our 2018 paper in the line 81 in the introduction and in line 121 in methods.

The two primary ways this work advances the data are: 1) we previously did not report on specific muscles. The current work assesses MFI in 7 bilateral cervical muscle groups. Given that different muscles of the neck have unique roles and potential contributions to health and disability, we felt this was a significant new contribution. 2) The current work uses machine learning to identify, segment and quantify MFI in these 7 bilateral muscles in a consistent automated method. We demonstrate the application of this new technical contribution for patients with DCM. However, this technique may be used in future studies to identify both normal and abnormal anatomy and in unique disease states.

We have added “We build upon our previous work (14) utilizing this multi-muscle model that can be easily applied to the cervical spine in DCM and other pathologies.” at line 409 in conclusion.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting foundational work in attempting to use machine learning to assess differences in patients with CSM as compared to controls. The authors present their data clearly, but need to avoid any confusion of causation with association, which is not assessed by their study. For example, this statement in the conclusion is not supported: "Differences in MFI may explain the variability in clinical presentation of symptoms, augment assessments, inform interventions, and enhance healthcare received by patients with DCM" While the authors have only assessed CSM vs controls in this early foundational work, this has the potential to be clinically useful and I hope next steps for the authors will include utilizing this methodology to comparatively assess differential recovery amongst patients with CSM after surgery.

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We agree the results show an association and we are not supportive of causation. The specific sentence that was cited by Reviewer #2 has been fully removed and re-written as “MFI could be a potential biomarker for patient assessments, better candidate selection for surgery and prognosis” in line 401.

Further, we have added “Future investigations focusing on predictive utility of fat water imaging should compare differential recovery among patients with DCM after surgery.” in line 402 to note our future directions in exploring a methodology to assess differential recovery, as noted by this reviewer. This work is an early step for us to build upon.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Jonathan H Sherman

15 Jun 2021

Fatty Infiltration in Cervical Flexors and Extensors in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Using a Multi-Muscle Segmentation Model

PONE-D-21-15609R1

Dear Dr. Paliwal,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jonathan H Sherman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for the responses and changes to this work. I have no further concerns and look forward to reading future work by this group.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Jonathan H Sherman

17 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-15609R1

Fatty Infiltration in Cervical Flexors and Extensors in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Using a Multi-Muscle Segmentation Model 

Dear Dr. Paliwal:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jonathan H Sherman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES