Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28426705›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

An automated algorithm for the detection of cortical interruptions on high resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography images of finger joints.

M Peters, A Scharmga, J de Jong, A van Tubergen, P Geusens, J J Arts, D Loeffen, R Weijers, B van Rietbergen, J van den Bergh

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

M PetersDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4268-0548
A ScharmgaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
J de JongDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
A van TubergenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
P GeusensDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
J J ArtsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
D LoeffenDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
R WeijersDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
B van RietbergenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
J van den BerghDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo introduce a fully-automated algorithm for the detection of small cortical interruptions (≥0.246mm in diameter) on high resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) images, and to investigate the additional value of manual correction of the automatically obtained contours (semi-automated procedure).

methodsTen metacarpophalangeal joints from seven patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and three healthy controls were imaged with HR-pQCT. The images were evaluated by an algorithm according to the fully- and semi-automated procedure for the number and surface of interruptions per joint. Reliability between the fully- and semi-automated procedure and between two independent operators was tested using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the proportion of matching interruptions. Validity of single interruptions detected was tested by comparing it to visual scoring, as gold standard. The positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity were calculated.

resultsThe median number of interruptions per joint was 14 (range 2 to 59) and did not significantly differ between the fully- and semi-automated procedure (p = 0.37). The median interruption surface per joint was significantly higher with the fully- vs. semi-automated procedure (respectively, 8.6mm2 vs. 5.8mm2 and 6.1mm2, p = 0.01). Reliability was almost perfect between the fully- and semi-automated procedure for both the number and surface of interruptions (ICC≥0.95) and the proportion of matching interruptions was high (≥76%). Also the inter-operator reliability was almost perfect (ICC≥0.97, proportion of matching interruptions 92%). The PPV ranged from 27.6% to 29.9%, and sensitivity from 69.7% to 76.3%. Most interruptions detected with the algorithm, did show an interruption on a 2D grayscale image. However, this interruption did not meet the criteria of an interruption with visual scoring.

conclusionThe algorithm for HR-pQCT images detects cortical interruptions, and its interruption surface. Reliability and validity was comparable for the fully- and semi-automated procedures. However, we advise the use of the semi-automated procedure to assure quality. The algorithm is a promising tool for a sensitive and objective assessment of cortical interruptions in finger joints assessed by HR-pQCT.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAutomationArthritis, RheumatoidCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMetacarpophalangeal JointMiddle AgedTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID28426705
PMCPMC5402632
OpenAlexW2606242832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.