Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32988236›Full record

ArticleCartilage2021

Reproducibility of an Automated Quantitative MRI Assessment of Low-Grade Knee Articular Cartilage Lesions.

Vladimir Juras, Pavol Szomolanyi, Markus M Schreiner, Karin Unterberger, Andrea Kurekova, Benedikt Hager, Didier Laurent, Esther Raithel, Heiko Meyer, Siegfried Trattnig

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cartilage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Vladimir JurasHigh-Field MR Centre, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4026-5922
Pavol SzomolanyiHigh-Field MR Centre, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Markus M SchreinerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3163-0481
Karin UnterbergerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andrea KurekovaHigh-Field MR Centre, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Benedikt HagerHigh-Field MR Centre, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Didier LaurentNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Department of Translational Medicine, Basel, Switzerland.
Esther RaithelSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Heiko MeyerSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Siegfried TrattnigHigh-Field MR Centre, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATSiemens Healthineers (Germany) · DESlovak Academy of Sciences · SKAustrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration · ATNovartis (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF KLI 541
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe goal of this study was to assess the reproducibility of an automated knee cartilage segmentation of 21 cartilage regions with a model-based algorithm and to compare the results with manual segmentation.

designThirteen patients with low-grade femoral cartilage defects were included in the study and were scanned twice on a 7-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner 8 days apart. A 3-dimensional double-echo steady-state (3D-DESS) sequence was used to acquire MR images for automated cartilage segmentation, and T2-mapping was performed using a 3D triple-echo steady-state (3D-TESS) sequence. Cartilage volume, thickness, and T2 and texture features were automatically extracted from each knee for each of the 21 subregions. DESS was used for manual cartilage segmentation and compared with automated segmentation using the Dice coefficient. The reproducibility of each variable was expressed using standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC).

resultsThe Dice coefficient for the similarity between manual and automated segmentation ranged from 0.83 to 0.88 in different cartilage regions. Test-retest analysis of automated cartilage segmentation and automated quantitative parameter extraction revealed excellent reproducibility for volume measurement (mean SDC for all subregions of 85.6 mm

conclusionsThe proposed technique of automated knee cartilage evaluation based on the segmentation of 3D MR images and correlation with T2 mapping provides highly reproducible results and significantly reduces the segmentation effort required for the analysis of knee articular cartilage in longitudinal studies.

Indexed as

Cartilage, ArticularHumansKneeKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingReproducibility of Resultscartilage repairdiagnosisdiagnosticsjoint involvedkneemagnetic resonance imagingosteoarthritisrepair

Identifiers

PMID32988236
PMCPMC8808824
OpenAlexW3089487203

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.