Comparison of DTI Parameter Ratios for Early Diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Global Spine J . 2026 Apr 18:21925682261444614. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1177/21925682261444614 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Comparison of DTI Parameter Ratios for Early Diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Chenfei Gao Chenfei Gao , MD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Chenfei Gao 1, * , Jiale Cui Jiale Cui , MD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Jiale Cui 1, * , Jiayi Zhang Jiayi Zhang , MD 2 Sterilization Supply Department, No. 905 Hospital of PLA Navy, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Jiayi Zhang 2, * , Tenghui Zhang Tenghui Zhang , MD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Tenghui Zhang 1 , Zixi Wang Zixi Wang , MD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Zixi Wang 1 , Wenyu Zhang Wenyu Zhang , MD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Wenyu Zhang 1 , Jianxi Wang Jianxi Wang , MD, PhD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Jianxi Wang 1 , Lei Liang Lei Liang , MD, PhD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Lei Liang 1 , Bo Hu Bo Hu , MD, PhD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Bo Hu 1, ✉ , Song Jiang Song Jiang , MD 3 Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Song Jiang 3, ✉ , Huajiang Chen Huajiang Chen , MD, PhD 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China Find articles by Huajiang Chen 1, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China 2 Sterilization Supply Department, No. 905 Hospital of PLA Navy, Shanghai, PR China 3 Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, PR China ✉ Huajiang Chen, MD, PhD, Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, 415th Feng Yang Road, Shanghai 200003, PR China. Email: [email protected] ✉ Song Jiang, MD, Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, 415th Feng Yang Road, Shanghai 200003, PR China. Email: [email protected] ✉ Bo Hu, MD, PhD, Spine Center, Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, 415th Feng Yang Road, Shanghai 200003, PR China. Email: [email protected] * Chenfei Gao, Jiale Cui, Jiayi Zhang contributed equally to this work. ✉ All corresponding authors contributed equally to this work. Received 2026 Jan 14; Revised 2026 Mar 23; Accepted 2026 Apr 8. © The Author(s) 2026 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage ). PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13091907 PMID: 41999388 Abstract Study Design Prospective study. Objective To assess the performance of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) parameter ratios for early diagnosis by investigating their associations with clinical measures in patients with single-level degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Methods A total of 309 participants were enrolled in this study, including 176 patients in the DCM group and 133 healthy controls. Baseline variables were used for propensity score matching (PSM), yielding 103 matched pairs. Fractional anisotropy (FA), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and relative anisotropy (RA) values in white matter (WM) and gray matter (GM) were measured respectively. Clinical measures including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Nurick grade, and symptom duration were used. Cut-off values were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Stratified bootstrap resampling was used for internal validation. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. And the Youden index was used to identify optimal thresholds. Results In healthy controls, FA, ADC, and RA ratios in all 3 WM regions and in GM showed no significant correlations with age. The RA ratio showed the strongest correlations with JOA (r = 0.896) and symptom duration (r = −0.760) (all P < 0.001). The RA ratio achieved the highest AUC (0.981; cut-off 0.844; sensitivity 98.07%; specificity 96.12%) and outperformed the FA ratio (AUC = 0.927) and ADC ratio (AUC = 0.939) by DeLong’s test ( P < 0.05). Conclusion The RA ratio may serve as a complementary quantitative imaging marker to support clinical assessment in the diagnosis and prediction of DCM. Keywords: diffusion tensor imaging, degenerative cervical myelopathy, early diagnosis, parameter ratios, relative anisotropy, diagnostic performance Introduction Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is an umbrella term encompassing a variety of cervical degenerative disorders with a wide range of symptoms and signs. 1 Most patients present with a broad spectrum of symptoms, highlighting the complexity of their diagnosis. A study of the global burden of disease for neck and low back pain estimated that in 2015, more than one-third of the world's population suffered from mechanical neck pain lasting at least 3 months, emphasizing the impact of DCM on global health. 2 The complexity of symptom presentation makes the diagnosis of DCM challenging and contributes to uncertainty regarding prognosis. 3 Radiographic assessment is integral to the diagnosis of DCM. Conventional diagnostic methods include clinical evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which are commonly used to assess the extent of spinal cord injury. 4 , 5 However, conventional MRI, particularly T2-weighted imaging, has been shown to have limitations in sensitivity to early spinal cord lesions, especially in the absence of significant spinal cord edema or morphologic changes. 6 With the advancement of imaging methods, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) has been increasingly used for early detection of spinal cord lesions and prediction of surgical outcomes. 7 - 9 DTI can reveal changes in the microstructure of the spinal cord and can be derived from standard MRI acquisitions without additional hardware. 10 It has been found that DTI parameters such as fractional anisotropy (FA) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) are closely associated with white and gray matter pathological changes in the spinal cord. 11 Quantitative analysis of these metrics can provide detailed information about spinal cord compression, changes in nerve fiber bundles, and functional impairment, 12 , 13 offering new perspectives for assessing DCM. However, the application of DTI still faces some challenges, such as the standardization of imaging data, the selection of region of interest (ROI), 14 and the validity of parameter ratios. 15 - 17 Most existing studies use absolute values of DTI parameters as reference indices and mainly focus on the Western populations. 18 In addition, few studies have systematically compared the feasibility of different DTI parameters in evaluating the status of DCM patients using clinical scales that are commonly used in routine practice. Although DTI metrics appear clinically useful, it remains unclear which parameter provides the best performance. Therefore, this study aimed to optimize the application of DTI in the early diagnosis of DCM by systematically comparing different DTI parameter ratios in a relatively large cohort. We compared the trends of different DTI parameter ratios in single-level DCM patients and analyzed correlations between these parameter ratios and clinical scores. The diagnostic thresholds of each parameter ratio were further determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. This approach allowed us to identify the most informative DTI ratio for early diagnosis of DCM. Materials and Methods Subjects The study was approved by the institutional review board. All participants provided written informed consent. Two versions of the consent form were used for the 2 groups, allowing their clinical data to be used for research. The healthy group included 133 individuals recruited from the medical examination center of our hospital ( Figure 1 ). Controls were excluded if they had a history of cervical or lumbar trauma, spinal surgery, or other neurologic diseases. Absence of cervical spinal cord compression was confirmed on computed tomography (CT) or MRI. All patients were recruited between January 2024 and July 2025 at the Department of Orthopedics ( Figure 1 ). Eligible patients were required to meet all of the following inclusion criteria: age 20 to 80 years; confirmed single-level spinal cord compression on CT or MRI; at least 1 clinical symptom or sign consistent with DCM (eg, hyperreflexia, clonus, clumsy hands, Hoffmann or Babinski signs, bladder or gait dysfunction). Clinical status was evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, 19 Visual Analog Scale (VAS), 20 and Nurick grade 21 for each patient. Symptom duration was defined as the patient-reported interval from the first onset of symptoms potentially attributable to DCM (eg, limb pain or numbness, limb weakness, or gait dysfunction) to study enrollment. Exclusion criteria included prior cervical spine surgery, nondegenerative etiologies, comorbid diseases (eg, multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis), traumatic central cord syndrome, multilevel (≥2 levels) spinal cord compression, and MRI contraindications (eg, pregnancy or metallic implants). Figure 1. Open in a new tab Flowchart of participants’ recruitment. DCM, degenerative cervical myelopathy Propensity Score Matching Propensity score matching (matching tolerance 0.02) was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Gender, age subgroups, height, weight, and BMI were used as covariates for matching, yielding 103 matched pairs. The demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1 . Table 1. The Basic Information of DCM Patients and Control Group Before PSM P * value After PSM P * value Control group DCM patients Control group DCM patients Total(n) 133 176 103 103 Male/Female 69/64 104/72 0.206 63/40 59/44 0.571 20-40 29 24 15 21 41-60 67 96 54 62 61-80 37 56 34 20 Age (yrs) 50.17 ± 13.32 54.95 ± 12.42 0.001 53.51 ± 12.07 51.32 ± 11.31 0.168 20-40 32.00 ± 5.11 34.46 ± 5.31 0.093 34.33 ± 2.97 35.00 ± 5.19 0.658 41-60 49.01 ± 5.44 51.74 ± 5.03 0.001 50.59 ± 5.57 51.69 ± 4.71 0.251 61-80 66.51 ± 5.70 69.25 ± 5.05 0.017 66.79 ± 5.82 67.30 ± 4.82 0.744 Height(cm) 167.95 ± 7.90 166.12 ± 8.08 0.047 168.06 ± 8.000 166.85 ± 7.63 0.268 Weight(kg) 71.51 ± 12.53 66.95 ± 12.80 0.002 70.35 ± 12.59 68.34 ± 12.61 0.255 BMI 25.29 ± 3.79 24.10 ± 3.33 0.004 24.81 ± 3.58 24.43 ± 3.48 0.439 Symptoms duration (months) NA 92.01 ± 50.27 NA 88.20 ± 46.73 Level of spinal cord compression C3/4 NA 26 NA 11 C4/5 NA 35 NA 18 C5/6 NA 68 NA 49 C6/7 NA 47 NA 25 Total 176 103 Open in a new tab NA indicates Not Applicable; yrs indicates years old. No significant differences in Sex, Age, Height, Weight and BMI were found between DCM patients and control group after PSM. Data were presented as mean ± SD. *Sex, Age and BMI data were analyzed using Chi Square test and independent t test correspondingly. Image Acquisition All examinations were performed on the same 3.0-T MRI system (uMR 770; United Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, China) using a phased-array cervicothoracic spine coil with participants in the supine position. The routine protocol included sagittal T1-weighted and T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE) sequences and an axial T2-weighted TSE sequence to assess canal stenosis and spinal cord compression. DTI was acquired with a single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) axial sequence covering the C1–C7 spinal cord. Key parameters were as follows: repetition time (TR), 6836 ms; echo time (TE), 82.7 ms; flip angle, 90°; field of view (FOV), 250 × 230 mm 2 ; acquisition matrix, 128 × 128; slice thickness, 4.0 mm (no interslice gap); voxel size, approximately 1.95 × 1.95 × 4.00 mm 3 ; phase-encoding direction anterior-to-posterior; bandwidth, 1630 Hz/pixel; parallel imaging acceleration factor, 2; number of excitations (NEX), 4, with fat suppression. Bipolar diffusion gradients were applied with b values of 0 and 900 s/mm 2 in 24 noncollinear directions; the b = 0 image was acquired twice to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Automated shimming and coil optimization were performed before each scan. Total acquisition time was 13 min 26 s. ROI Selection and Measurements DTI parameters were measured by 2 radiologists. Five levels (C1/2, C3/4, C4/5, C5/6, and C6/7) were measured in the healthy group ( Figure 2A ). The C1/2 level (reference value) and the compressed levels (C3/4-C6/7) were measured in the DCM group ( Figure 2B ). By further subdividing the anatomical structure of the spinal cord, the spinal cord cross-section was divided into 4 regions: gray matter (GM), dorsal funiculi (DF), ventral funiculi (VF), and lateral funiculi (LF). Symmetrical ROI selection was performed for these regions to improve the accuracy of the assessment at the corresponding level ( Figure 2D ). 22 , 23 FA ( Figure 3B, F ), ADC ( Figure 3D, H ), and RA ( Figure 3C, G ) were measured in 2 symmetrical ROIs. Each ROI was measured independently by 2 radiologists, and the mean value was used for analysis. Interobserver agreement for FA, ADC, and RA measurements was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). ROIs were placed as close as possible to the inner spinal cord to minimize partial volume effects because of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). If the absolute differences between the 2 readers exceeded 1 × 10−3 mm 2 /s for ADC, 0.5 for FA, or 0.5 for RA, the measurements were repeated and the final values were recorded. These thresholds were used as internal quality-control criteria rather than externally validated cutoff values. For the control group, the FA ratios, ADC ratios, and RA ratios at the C3/4-C6/7 levels were calculated using the original values at the C3/4-C6/7 levels, then divided by the corresponding values at the C1/2 levels. For the DCM group, the FA ratios, ADC ratios, and RA ratios at the compressed level were calculated using the original values at the compressed level divided by the corresponding values at the C1/2 levels. Figure 2. Open in a new tab Sagittal MRI T2WI and ROI selection method. (A) Control group images. DTI ratios of the WM (VF, LF, and DF) and central GM at the C3/4, C4/5, C5/6, and C6/7 levels were calculated using the original values at the C3/4-C6/7 levels and dividing by the corresponding values at their C1/2 levels. (B) Images of the DCM patients. DTI ratios of the WM (VF, LF, and DF) and central GM were measured and calculated at the most compressed levels (C5/6) and at the corresponding C1/2 levels. (C) Schematic of spinal cord cross-section and ROI partitioning: central gray matter (GM, gray), dorsal funiculi (DF, red), ventral funiculi (VF, green), and lateral funiculi (LF, blue). (D) ROIs are placed bilaterally and with equal area within each region Figure 3. Open in a new tab ROI selection (A–H). A, B, C and D are the anatomical, FA, RA and ADC images respectively at the C1/2 level that were shown in Figure 2A . E, F, G and H are the anatomical, FA, RA and ADC images at the C5/6 level that were shown in Figure 2B Statistical Analysis Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). ROC analyses were performed in R (version 4.4.1) using the pROC package. Interobserver agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) based on a two-way random-effects model with absolute agreement. Both single-measure ICC [ICC (2,1)] and average-measure ICC [ICC (2,2)] with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Because the mean of the 2 readers was used for subsequent analyses, ICC (2,2) was considered the primary reliability index. Baseline data were analyzed by chi-square test and independent-samples t-test. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Student-Newman-Keuls (SNK) post hoc test were used to analyze the data among age subgroups. Before Pearson correlation analysis, linearity, approximate normality, and the presence of influential outliers were assessed by visual inspection of scatterplots and distributions. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the associations between clinical measures (JOA, VAS, Nurick grade, and symptom duration) and DTI metrics. The diagnostic performance of FA, ADC, and RA ratios was assessed using ROC curve analysis. DeLong’s test was used to compare AUCs among ratios. A two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Internal validation was performed using stratified bootstrap resampling with out-of-bag (OOB) evaluation (1000 resamples). Results Characteristics of Participants The information of 2 groups was shown in Table 1 . The healthy group consisted of 69 males and 64 females. The mean age was 51.3 years (range 20-77 years). A total of 176 patients with single-level DCM were included (104 males and 72 females). After PSM, 103 matched pairs were obtained, 59 males and 44 females in DCM group corresponding to 63 males and 40 females in the healthy group. Mean ages were 54.95 years (range 26-78 years) and 51.32 years (range 26–78 years), before and after PSM. The symptom duration was 92.01 months (range 3-180 months) and 88.20 months (range 8–180 months), respectively. The compressed level was C3/C4 in 26 patients (11, after PSM), C4/C5 in 35 (18, after PSM), C5/C6 in 68 (49, after PSM), and C6/C7 in 47 (25, after PSM). The selection bias of age and BMI was effectively reduced after PSM. The JOA scores ranged from 6 to 15 (11.56 ± 1.72). Comparison of DTI Ratios in Age Subgroups No significant differences in FA ratio, ADC ratio or RA ratio were observed among age subgroups in healthy controls (all P > 0.05) ( Table 2 ). Interobserver agreement for the underlying ROI measurements in healthy controls was generally good to excellent overall. Based on ICC (2,2), FA, ADC, and RA measurements ranged from 0.770 to 0.983, 0.882 to 0.987, and 0.726 to 0.987, respectively. No linear correlations with age were observed for any of the 3 DTI ratios in any region of the spinal cord ( Figure 4A–L ). These results suggest that using DTI ratios rather than absolute values may mitigate age-related effects after PSM. Table 2. Comparison of the FA Ratios, ADC Ratios and RA Ratios Among Different Age Subgroups in Controls <40 years n = 15 41-50 years n = 26 51-60 years n = 28 61-70 years n = 26 >70 years n = 8 P * value FA ratios GM 0.925 ± 0.030 0.933 ± 0.046 0.939 ± 0.033 0.933 ± 0.033 0.932 ± 0.034 0.820 DF 0.933 ± 0.029 0.911 ± 0.045 0.937 ± 0.030 0.935 ± 0.029 0.935 ± 0.039 0.057 VF 0.936 ± 0.030 0.929 ± 0.055 0.942 ± 0.034 0.939 ± 0.037 0.941 ± 0.023 0.832 LF 0.935 ± 0.034 0.923 ± 0.041 0.931 ± 0.028 0.929 ± 0.032 0.921 ± 0.034 0.758 ADC ratios GM 1.123 ± 0.080 1.100 ± 0.086 1.111 ± 0.073 1.096 ± 0.069 1.154 ± 0.060 0.360 DF 1.085 ± 0.038 1.104 ± 0.063 1.105 ± 0.059 1.090 ± 0.053 1.104 ± 0.030 0.681 VF 1.129 ± 0.059 1.174 ± 0.306 1.131 ± 0.211 1.136 ± 0.212 1.115 ± 0.048 0.934 LF 1.130 ± 0.077 1.089 ± 0.113 1.085 ± 0.099 1.079 ± 0.096 1.130 ± 0.063 0.396 RA ratios GM 0.924 ± 0.033 0.940 ± 0.045 0.934 ± 0.037 0.939 ± 0.037 0.920 ± 0.031 0.493 DF 0.919 ± 0.040 0.904 ± 0.053 0.938 ± 0.049 0.931 ± 0.054 0.894 ± 0.069 0.074 VF 0.918 ± 0.048 0.919 ± 0.095 0.945 ± 0.045 0.924 ± 0.095 0.929 ± 0.065 0.737 LF 0.916 ± 0.046 0.927 ± 0.069 0.925 ± 0.057 0.928 ± 0.070 0.883 ± 0.089 0.489 Open in a new tab DF indicates dorsal funiculi; GM, gray matter; LF, lateral funiculi; VF, ventral funiculus. No significant differences in FA ratios, ADC ratios and RA Ratios of the VF, LF, DF, or GM were found among different ages in the control group. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *Data were analyzed using ANOVA. Figure 4. Open in a new tab Correlation between FA ratio (A-D), ADC ratio (E-H) and RA ratio (I-L) with age in WM funiculi and GM. Scatter plots show the linear regression results for each region (GM, DF, VF, LF) with corresponding R and p values. Overall, no significant correlations were observed between the DTI ratios and age. All P > 0.05 Comparison of DTI Ratios and Absolute Values in DCM Group Interobserver agreement for the compressed level in patients with DCM was generally good to excellent. Based on ICC (2,2), FA, ADC, and RA measurements at the maximally compressed level ranged from 0.872 to 0.933, 0.881 to 0.948, and 0.901 to 0.942, respectively. Pearson correlation analysis showed that correlations between DTI ratios, JOA scores, and symptom duration were consistently higher than those between DTI values, JOA scores, and symptom duration ( Table 3 ) in all WM funiculi and GM. Additionally, we observed that correlations between RA ratios, JOA scores, and symptom duration were consistently higher than those for the FA and ADC ratios. Table 3. Correlation Coefficients Between DTI Parameters, Parameter Ratios and the JOA Scores and Symptom Duration JOA score Symptom duration FA value FA ratio ADC value ADC ratio RA value RA ratio FA value FA ratio ADC value ADC ratio RA value RA ratio GM r 0.739 0.795 −0.740 −0.742 0.755 0.806 −0.649 −0.704 0.608 0.616 −0.650 −0.707 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 DF r 0.677 0.706 −0.731 −0.768 0.782 0.869 −0.557 −0.580 0.645 0.658 −0.633 −0.699 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 VF r 0.632 0.751 −0.719 −0.727 0.715 0.848 −0.679 −0.688 0.618 0.629 −0.635 −0.709 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 LF r 0.708 0.738 −0.733 −0.739 0.772 0.849 −0.613 −0.615 0.592 0.599 −0.677 −0.746 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Open in a new tab Data were analyzed using the Pearson correlation. GM indicates gray matter; DF, dorsal funiculi; VF, ventral funiculus; LF, lateral funiculi. We further contrasted, within each region (GM, DF, VF, LF), the associations of absolute DTI values vs their ratios with VAS and Nurick grade ( Table 4 ). Overall, ratio-based metrics outperformed absolute values. For FA and RA, correlations with both VAS and Nurick were consistently larger for the ratios than for the raw values. In contrast, the advantage was less consistent for ADC, as the ADC ratio did not consistently outperform the absolute ADC in several regions. Across clinical scales, Nurick grade generally showed stronger correlations with DTI ratios than VAS. Among ratios, RA again yielded the largest effect sizes with VAS and Nurick in most regions, with one exception in GM, where the RA ratio did not outperform the other metrics. Table 4. Correlation Coefficients Between DTI Parameters, Parameter Ratios and VAS and Nurick Grade VAS Nurick grade FA value FA ratio ADC value ADC ratio RA value RA ratio FA value FA ratio ADC value ADC ratio RA value RA ratio GM r −0.474 −0.503 0.444 0.485 −0.462 −0.535 −0.640 −0.701 0.547 0.520 −0.627 −0.633 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 DF r −0.410 −0.462 0.542 0.494 −0.484 −0.536 −0.585 −0.602 0.600 0.545 −0.68 −0.715 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 VF r −0.382 −0.405 0.435 0.463 −0.416 −0.535 −0.617 −0.651 0.578 0.559 −0.614 −0.712 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 LF r −0.423 −0.478 0.469 0.462 −0.489 −0.562 −0.551 −0.609 0.619 0.564 −0.652 −0.727 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Open in a new tab Data were analyzed using the Pearson correlation. GM indicates gray matter; DF, dorsal funiculi; VF, ventral funiculus; LF, lateral funiculi. Correlations Between DTI Ratios and Clinical Measures To summarize overall trends, we averaged each DTI parameter ratio across the 4 regions (GM, DF, VF, LF) and computed a Pearson correlation matrix between DTI ratios and 4 clinical measures (JOA, symptom duration, VAS, and Nurick grade) ( Figure 5 ). As before, JOA showed strong positive correlations with the FA ratio (r = 0.794) and RA ratio (r = 0.896), and a strong negative correlation with the ADC ratio (r = −0.800). Symptom duration showed the opposite correlation signs: longer duration was associated with lower FA and RA ratios and higher ADC ratios, which is directionally consistent with more advanced microstructural injury. (FA ratio r = −0.689; RA ratio r = −0.760; ADC ratio r = 0.673). The other 2 clinical measures, VAS and Nurick grade, mirrored these directions: higher VAS and higher Nurick grade were associated with lower FA (VAS r = −0.488; Nurick r = −0.681) and lower RA (VAS r = −0.576; Nurick r = −0.742), but with higher ADC (VAS r = 0.512; Nurick r = 0.589). Among the imaging metrics, the RA ratio yielded the largest magnitudes across all 4 clinical dimensions—function (JOA), chronicity (duration), pain (VAS), and gait/disability (Nurick). All P < 0.001. Figure 5. Open in a new tab Correlation matrix of DTI parameter ratios (FA, ADC, RA) with clinical measures (JOA score, symptom duration, VAS, and Nurick grade). Pearson correlation coefficients are displayed for each pair, with positive and negative correlations indicated by warmer and cooler colors, respectively ROC Analysis of DTI Ratios To reduce optimism associated with deriving cut-offs and estimating performance in the same dataset, we additionally performed stratified bootstrap internal validation with out-of-bag (OOB) evaluation (1000 resamples) ( Table S2 ). In Figure 6 , ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.927 for the FA ratio (cut-off, 0.863; sensitivity, 98.06%; specificity, 83.50%; P < 0.001), with a bootstrap-derived 95% CI of 0.880-0.966. The ADC ratio yielded an AUC of 0.939 (cut-off, 1.188; sensitivity, 90.29%; specificity, 95.15%; P < 0.001), with a 95% CI of 0.897-0.976. The RA ratio achieved the highest AUC (0.981; cut-off, 0.844; sensitivity, 98.07%; specificity, 96.12%), with a 95% CI of 0.956-0.998. DeLong’s test showed significant differences between RA and FA ( P = 0.007) and between RA and ADC ( P = 0.021), whereas FA and ADC did not differ significantly ( P = 0.081). Figure 6. Open in a new tab ROC curves and bootstrap internal validation of the FA ratio, ADC ratio, and RA ratio. (A) FA ratio; (B) ADC ratio; (C) RA ratio. The colored solid line indicates the apparent ROC curve based on the full dataset, and the light blue curves indicate bootstrap ROC curves from 1,000 resamples. The dashed diagonal line represents the reference line. These plots illustrate the apparent discriminative performance and its internal stability for each ratio Discussion In the present study, we observed that DTI parameter ratios exhibited stronger associations with JOA score, symptom duration, VAS, and Nurick grade than the corresponding absolute values. All 3 ratios were significantly associated with JOA score, symptom duration, VAS, and Nurick grade, with the RA ratio showing the strongest correlations. Consistently, ROC analysis demonstrated a larger AUC for the RA ratio, supporting its superior diagnostic performance compared with the FA and ADC ratios. Although many studies have demonstrated significant associations between DTI metrics and clinical rating scales such as the JOA score, 17 several potential sources of bias must be considered, with age being one of the most important. 15 , 24 - 26 Absolute DTI values are susceptible to age-related variation, interindividual baseline differences, and segment-dependent differences. So we normalized each parameter by calculating the ratio of the maximally compressed level to C1/2 to reduce systematic variability. 16 This likely explains, at least in part, why the ratio-based metrics outperformed the corresponding absolute values in our analyses. In addition, PSM was used to balance baseline characteristics between patients and healthy controls, thereby minimizing confounding in the relationships between DTI ratios and JOA score or symptom duration. Furthermore, because previous work has shown that DTI metrics vary across cervical levels, 24 we established a relatively large cohort but restricted inclusion to single-level DCM and placed ROIs at the maximally compressed segment for analysis. Previous studies have consistently demonstrated decreased FA and increased ADC at the compressed level in DCM, 8 - 12 with these changes correlating inversely with JOA scores. However, the behavior of RA has rarely been reported. In this context, our data further show that, within the same analytic framework, the RA ratio provides greater discriminative ability and stronger correlations with clinical measures than the FA and ADC ratios. Prior studies have also reported diffuse increases in ADC across multiple ROIs in the absence of parallel FA changes, suggesting that ADC is more strongly influenced by edema and free water and is less specific for tract injury. 27 - 30 Methodologically, the use of C1/2 as an internal reference and the adoption of compression-to-reference ratios in place of absolute values have been endorsed by several groups. 16 Moreover, we did not detect significant differences from controls in the upper cervical segments (eg, C1/2 and C2/3), indicating that the observed abnormalities are predominantly focal, although potential remote or Wallerian degeneration cannot be entirely excluded. Taken together, these findings extend the evidence linking microstructural abnormalities at the compressed segment with clinical phenotype, and suggest that the RA ratio may be the most informative adjunctive imaging marker among the evaluated DTI ratios according to ROC-derived performance. JOA score is one of the most widely used instruments for grading the severity of DCM. 19 VAS and the Nurick grade are also widely used. 20 , 21 However, these scales inevitably incorporate subjective components, and changes in the score do not necessarily map linearly onto the extent of spinal cord microstructural damage. In view of this subjectivity and nonlinear scaling, the RA ratio may serve as an objective quantitative marker that complements the JOA score and other clinical assessments for patient stratification and follow-up. A growing body of evidence suggests that DTI-derived metrics may function as potential imaging biomarkers of cervical spinal cord pathology. 31 - 33 Nevertheless, few studies have systematically addressed which specific DTI parameter offers superior performance in capturing microstructural injury and discriminating DCM, which constitutes the primary focus of the present work. From the tensor eigenvalue decomposition, ADC primarily reflects the overall magnitude of isotropic diffusion within a voxel and increases in the presence of edema or excess free water. 34 In contrast, FA and RA characterize the dispersion of the 3 eigenvalues (ie, the degree of diffusion anisotropy), and are therefore closely related to axonal coherence and myelin integrity. 35 RA can be defined as the ratio between the anisotropic and isotropic components of the diffusion tensor, whereas FA is an equivalent rotationally invariant index of anisotropy bounded between 0 and 1. 36 The 2 measures are monotonically related but differ in numerical scaling, with RA providing a wider dynamic range in regions of intermediate anisotropy. 37 Based on these considerations, we infer that RA may be more sensitive to microstructural changes of the spinal cord. In degenerative cervical spinal cord compression, chronic ischemia, demyelination, and axonal degeneration lead to loss of fiber organization, typically manifesting as a combination of decreased FA, RA and increased ADC, 38 a pattern that has been repeatedly associated with greater clinical severity. This could also explain why scales that quantify neurological dysfunction from myelopathy are expected to align more closely with anisotropy-based DTI ratios than with VAS. 39 These conceptual differences provide a parsimonious explanation for our finding that the RA ratio demonstrates stronger correlations with JOA and Nurick than with VAS, supporting the role of RA ratio as an objective biomarker that complements clinical scales rather than replacing clinical assessment. Within the present normalization framework, because ADC is additionally modulated by edema and other nonspecific water-content changes, the RA ratio highlights alterations in the anisotropic component relative to the isotropic component, thereby enhancing the contrast for fiber disorganization and myelin injury. This mechanism provides a plausible explanation for the superior correlations and discriminative performance of the RA ratio compared with the FA and ADC ratios in our cohort. It should be noted, however, that the advantages of RA-based metrics are contingent on sufficient signal-to-noise ratio and rigorous distortion and motion correction to avoid bias in anisotropy estimates. 37 , 40 Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, this was a single-center study that included only patients with single-level DCM. Restricting analysis to the maximally compressed level may enhance contrast between groups but could also overestimate diagnostic performance relative to real-world heterogeneity. 10 Second, the inter-scanner and intra-observer reproducibility of the proposed metrics remains to be confirmed under more rigorously standardized acquisition and post-processing protocols. 41 Although C1/2 served as a pragmatic internal reference for normalization in this study, it may not represent a universally optimal solution. Future work should systematically compare alternative normalization strategies to establish more standardized approaches. In addition, although the DTI parameter ratios provide complementary quantitative information, they should be regarded as exploratory and are not intended to replace clinical assessment. Further validation in larger, independent cohorts is needed. 42 , 43 Finally, whether the DTI parameter ratios provide a fully specific and biologically interpretable surrogate for the underlying microstructural alterations in the spinal cord requires additional validation in longitudinal and, where feasible, correlative pathological studies. Conclusion Compared with absolute DTI values, DTI parameter ratios effectively attenuated age-related bias. Among these ratios, the RA ratio showed stronger associations with 3 clinical scales and symptom duration. In the ROC analysis, the RA ratio yielded a larger area under the curve than the FA and ADC ratios, indicating the highest diagnostic performance. Supplemental Material Supplemental Material - Comparison of DTI Parameter Ratios for Early Diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy sj-pdf-1-gsj-10.1177_21925682261444614.pdf (127.6KB, pdf) Supplemental Material for Comparison of DTI Parameter Ratios for Early Diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy by Chenfei Gao, Jiale Cui, Jiayi Zhang, Tenghui Zhang, Zixi Wang, Wenyu Zhang, Jianxi Wang, Lei Liang, Bo Hu, Song Jiang, Huajiang Chen in Global Spine Journal Author Contributions: Chenfei Gao: Project administration, Writing-original draft, Writing-review & editing, Investigation, Methodology; Jiale Cui: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing-review & editing; Jiayi Zhang: Data curation, Investigation, Writing-review & editing; Tenghui Zhang: Visualization,Writing-review & editing ;Zixi Wang: Validation, Writing-review & editing; Wenyu Zhang: Visualization, Writing-review & editing; Jianxi Wang: Methodology, Supervision; Lei Liang: Methodology, Writing-review & editing; Bo Hu: Validation, Supervision; Song Jiang: Resources, Validation, Methodology; Huajiang Chen: Conceptualization, Writing-review & editing, Funding Acquisition, Supervision Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from Shanghai Changzheng Hospital Clinical Innovation Project (2023YJBF-PY03). The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. AO Membership Information: Huajiang Chen (last author), AO id: pp100017868; Bo Hu (additional author), AO id: pp100318000. Supplemental Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online. ORCID iDs Chenfei Gao https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4917-6092 Jianxi Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6740-4331 Huajiang Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9132-8463 Ethical Consideration This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai ChangZheng Hospital (approval file No. 2024SL027). Consent to Participate All subjects signed informed consents. Consent for Publication We provided 2 different version of informed consents for the 2 groups of subjects to sign allowing their clinical data to be used for research and publication. References 1. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine. 2015;40(12):E675-E693. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000913. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Ko S, Choi W, Chae S. Comparison of inter- and intra-observer reliability among the three classification systems for cervical spinal canal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(9):2290-2296. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5187-3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Pedro KM, Alvi MA, Hejrati N, Quddusi AI, Singh A, Fehlings MG. Machine learning-based cluster analysis identifies four unique phenotypes of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy with distinct clinical profiles and long-term functional and neurological outcomes. EBioMedicine. 2024;106:105226. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105226. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Suri A, Chabbra RPS, Mehta VS, Gaikwad S, Pandey RM. Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2003;3(1):33-45. doi: 10.1016/s1529-9430(02)00448-5. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Yukawa Y, Kato F, Yoshihara H, Yanase M, Ito K. MR T2 image classification in cervical compression myelopathy: predictor of surgical outcomes. Spine. 2007;32(15):1675-1678. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318074d62e. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Martin AR, Tadokoro N, Tetreault L, et al. Imaging evaluation of degenerative cervical myelopathy: current state of the art and future directions. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018;29(1):33-45. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2017.09.003. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Ma X, Han X, Jiang W, et al. A follow-up study of postoperative DCM patients using diffusion MRI with DTI and NODDI. Spine. 2018;43(15):E898-E904. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002541. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Maki S, Koda M, Kitamura M, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging can predict surgical outcomes of patients with cervical compression myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(9):2459-2466. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5191-7. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Skotarczak M, Dzierżanowski J, Kaszubowski M, et al. Diagnostic value of diffusion tensor imaging in patients with clinical signs of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2022;56(4):341-348. doi: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2022.0031. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Kara B, Celik A, Karadereler S, et al. The role of DTI in early detection of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a preliminary study with 3-T MRI. Neuroradiology. 2011;53(8):609-616. doi: 10.1007/s00234-011-0844-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Liang KN, Feng PY, Feng XR, Cheng H. Diffusion tensor imaging and fiber tractography reveal significant microstructural changes of cervical nerve roots in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:e57-e64. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.154. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Dong F, Wu Y, Song P, et al. A preliminary study of 3.0-T magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(8):1839-1845. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5579-z. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Guan X, Fan G, Wu X, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging studies of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0117707. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117707. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Rossi C, Boss A, Steidle G, et al. Water diffusion anisotropy in white and gray matter of the human spinal cord. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27(3):476-482. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21252. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Wang K, Song Q, Zhang F, et al. Age-related changes of the diffusion tensor imaging parameters of the normal cervical spinal cord. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(12):2196-2202. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.010. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Wang K, Chen Z, Zhang F, et al. Evaluation of DTI parameter ratios and diffusion tensor tractography grading in the diagnosis and prognosis prediction of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2017;42(4):E202-E210. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001784. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Wu W, Yang Z, Zhang T, et al. Microstructural changes in compressed cervical spinal cord are consistent with clinical symptoms and symptom duration. Spine. 2020;45(16):E999-E1005. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003480. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Jones JGA, Cen SY, Lebel RM, Hsieh PC, Law M. Diffusion tensor imaging correlates with the clinical assessment of disease severity in cervical spondylotic myelopathy and predicts outcome following surgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(2):471-478. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3199. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Yonenobu K, Abumi K, Nagata K, Taketomi E, Ueyama K. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Japanese orthopaedic association scoring system for evaluation of cervical compression myelopathy. Spine. 2001;26(17):1890-1894. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200109010-00014. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Yanez Touzet A, Bhatti A, Dohle E, et al. Clinical outcome measures and their evidence base in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review to inform a core measurement set (AO spine RECODE-DCM). BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e057650. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057650. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. 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 ] 22. Yoo WK, Kim TH, Hai DM, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging and clinical findings of cervical myelopathy. Spine J. 2013;13(8):867-876. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.005. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Onu M, Gervai P, Cohen-Adad J, et al. Human cervical spinal cord funiculi: investigation with magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(4):829-837. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22101. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Liu Y, Kong C, Cui L, et al. Correlation between diffusion tensor imaging parameters and clinical assessments in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy with and without high signal intensity. Spinal Cord. 2017;55(12):1079-1083. doi: 10.1038/sc.2017.75. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Wei LF, Wang SS, Zheng ZC, Tian J, Xue L. Analysis of the diffusion tensor imaging parameters of a normal cervical spinal cord in a healthy population. J Spinal Cord Med. 2017;40(3):338-345. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2016.1244905. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Zhang BT, Li M, Yu LL, Dai YM, Yu SN, Jiang JL. Diffusion tensor imaging of spinal microstructure in healthy adults: improved resolution with the readout segmentation of long variable echo-trains. Neural Regener Res. 2017;12(12):2067-2070. doi: 10.4103/1673-5374.221166. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Alexander AL, Hurley SA, Samsonov AA, et al. Characterization of cerebral white matter properties using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging stains. Brain Connect. 2011;1(6):423-446. doi: 10.1089/brain.2011.0071. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Le Bihan D. Diffusion MRI: what water tells us about the brain. EMBO Mol Med. 2014;6(5):569-573. doi: 10.1002/emmm.201404055. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Shiohama T, McDavid J, Levman J, Takahashi E. Quantitative brain morphological analysis in CHARGE syndrome. Neuroimage Clin. 2019;23:101866. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101866. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Tae WS, Ham BJ, Pyun SB, Kang SH, Kim BJ. Current clinical applications of diffusion-tensor imaging in neurological disorders. J Clin Neurol. 2018;14(2):129-140. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2018.14.2.129. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. He B, Sheldrick K, Das A, Diwan A. Clinical and research MRI techniques for assessing spinal cord integrity in degenerative cervical myelopathy-a scoping review. Biomedicines. 2022;10(10):2621. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10102621. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Mohammadi M, Roohollahi F, Farahbakhsh F, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging in diagnosing and evaluating degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Spine J. 2025;15(1):267-283. doi: 10.1177/21925682241263792. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Scullen T, Milburn J, Aria K, Mathkour M, Tubbs RS, Kalyvas J. The use of diffusion tensor imaging in spinal pathology: a comprehensive literature review. Eur Spine J. 2024;33(9):3303-3314. doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08231-8. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Basser PJ, Özarslan E. Anisotropic diffusion: from the apparent diffusion coefficient to the apparent diffusion tensor. In: Jones P, Derek K, eds. Diffusion MRI: Theory, Methods, and Applications. doi: 10.1093/med/9780195369779.003.0006. Oxford University Press; 2010:0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Basser PJ, Pierpaoli C. Microstructural and physiological features of tissues elucidated by quantitative-diffusion-tensor MRI. J Magn Reson B. 1996;111(3):209-219. doi: 10.1006/jmrb.1996.0086. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Alba-Ferrara LM, de Erausquin GA. What does anisotropy measure? Insights from increased and decreased anisotropy in selective fiber tracts in schizophrenia. Front Integr Neurosci. 2013;7:9. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2013.00009. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Hasan KM, Alexander AL, Narayana PA. Does fractional anisotropy have better noise immunity characteristics than relative anisotropy in diffusion tensor MRI? An analytical approach. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51(2):413-417. doi: 10.1002/mrm.10682. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Vedantam A, Jirjis MB, Schmit BD, Wang MC, Ulmer JL, Kurpad SN. Diffusion tensor imaging of the spinal cord: insights from animal and human studies. Neurosurgery. 2014;74(1):1-8. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000171. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Misailidou V, Malliou P, Beneka A, Karagiannidis A, Godolias G. Assessment of patients with neck pain: a review of definitions, selection criteria, and measurement tools. J Chiropr Med. 2010;9(2):49-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2010.03.002. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Figley CR, Uddin MN, Wong K, Kornelsen J, Puig J, Figley TD. Potential pitfalls of using fractional anisotropy, axial diffusivity, and radial diffusivity as biomarkers of cerebral white matter microstructure. Front Neurosci. 2021;15:799576. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.799576. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Al-Shaari H, J F, R M, Cj H. A systematic review of repeatability and reproducibility studies of diffusion tensor imaging of cervical spinal cord. Br J Radiol. 2023;96(1151):20221019. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20221019. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Wang S, Hu Y, Shen Y, Li H. Classification of diffusion tensor metrics for the diagnosis of a myelopathic cord using machine learning. Int J Neural Syst. 2018;28(2):1750036. doi: 10.1142/S0129065717500368. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Jin R, Luk KD, Cheung JPY, Hu Y. Prognosis of cervical myelopathy based on diffusion tensor imaging with artificial intelligence methods. NMR Biomed. 2019;32(8):e4114. doi: 10.1002/nbm.4114. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supplemental Material - Comparison of DTI Parameter Ratios for Early Diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy sj-pdf-1-gsj-10.1177_21925682261444614.pdf (127.6KB, pdf) Supplemental Material for Comparison of DTI Parameter Ratios for Early Diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy by Chenfei Gao, Jiale Cui, Jiayi Zhang, Tenghui Zhang, Zixi Wang, Wenyu Zhang, Jianxi Wang, Lei Liang, Bo Hu, Song Jiang, Huajiang Chen in Global Spine Journal Articles from Global Spine Journal are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.5 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top