Topology-Guided Biomechanical Profiling: A White-Box Framework for Opportunistic Screening of Spinal Instability on Routine CT
Organizations: Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China · Westlake University, Hangzhou, China · The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China ·
Abstract
Routine oncologic computed tomography (CT) presents an ideal opportunity for screening spinal instability, yet prophylactic stabilization windows are frequently missed due to the complex geometric reasoning required by the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS). Automating SINS is fundamentally hindered by metastatic osteolysis, which induces topological ambiguity that confounds standard segmentation and black-box AI. We propose Topology-Guided Biomechanical Profiling (TGBP), an auditable white-box framework decoupling anatomical perception from structural reasoning. TGBP anchors SINS assessment on two deterministic geometric innovations: (i) canal-referenced partitioning to resolve posterolateral boundary ambiguity, and (ii) context-aware morphometric normalization via covariance-based oriented bounding boxes (OBB) to quantify vertebral collapse. Integrated with auxiliary radiomic and large language model (LLM) modules, TGBP provides an end-to-end, interpretable SINS evaluation. Validated on a multi-center, multi-cancer cohort (), TGBP achieved 90.2% accuracy in 3-tier stability triage. In a blinded reader study (), TGBP significantly outperformed medical oncologists on complex structural features ( vs.\ ) and prevented compounding errors in Total Score estimation ( vs.\ ), democratizing expert-level opportunistic screening.
Figures & tables
| Cohort | Geometric Components | Auxiliary | System Triage | ||||
| Collapse | Post. Inv. | Align. | Pain | Bone | Total | 3-Tier | |
| Core Generalization (Lung Cancer) | |||||||
| Dev. Lung | 0.785 / 76.7 | 0.835 / 86.0 | 0.185 / 85.5 | 0.653 / 81.4 | 0.722 / 75.6 | 0.647 | 0.716 / 79.7 |
| Prosp. Lung | 0.852 / 83.6 | 0.796 / 88.5 | 0.228 / 91.8 | 0.930 / 95.1 | 0.798 / 85.2 | 0.788 | 0.775 / 90.2 |
| Ext. Lung | 0.702 / 70.3 | 0.732 / 74.2 | 0.435 / 87.5 | 0.550 / 75.8 | 0.662 / 66.4 | 0.499 | 0.500 / 74.2 |
| Cross-Phenotype Robustness (Out-of-Distribution Metastases) | |||||||
| Methodology | Architecture | 3-Tier Class ( ) |
| Black-Box Baseline † | ResNet-50 | 0.377 |
| ResNet-152 | 0.413 | |
| DenseNet-169 | 0.525 | |
| DenseNet-121 | 0.582 | |
| Proposed (White-Box) | TGBP (Aggregated) | 0.597 |
| SINS Component / Output | TGBP ( ) | Oncologists (Mean ) | Range | |
| Spinal Location | 1.000 | 0.485 | 0.35–0.60 | +0.515 |
| Bone Lesion Quality | 0.806 | 0.421 | 0.35–0.49 | +0.385 |
| Mechanical Pain | 0.784 | 0.680 | 0.52–0.77 | +0.104 |
| Vertebral Collapse | 0.858 | 0.762 | 0.67–0.84 | +0.096 |
| Posterolateral Inv. | 0.857 | 0.570 | 0.47–0.66 | +0.287 |
| Spinal Alignment | 0.277 | -0.006 | -0.13–0.06 | +0.283 |
Explainable Medical Image Analysis
Explainable Medical Image Analysis develops methods that make medical image predictions understandable, verifiable, and useful for clinical review.
See all 255 papers