ArticleClinical rheumatology2021
Quantitative measurement of cartilage volume with automatic cartilage segmentation in knee osteoarthritis.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semi-Automatic MRI Segmentation for Assessing Cartilage Volume Changes After Ankle Distraction Arthroplasty Using the Ilizarov Frame for Ankle Osteoarthritis.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025Article
- 3D-DESS MRI with CAIPIRINHA two- and fourfold acceleration for quantitatively assessing knee cartilage morphology.Skeletal radiology · 2024Article
- A reproducibility study of knee cartilage volume and thickness values derived by fully automatic segmentation based on three-dimensional dual-echo in steady state data from 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Knowledge mapping and bibliometric analysis of medical knee magnetic resonance imaging for knee osteoarthritis (2004-2023).Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Getting Cartilage Thickness Measurements Right: A Systematic Inter-Method Comparison Using MRI Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.Cartilage · 2023Article
- Analysis of Knee Joint Injury Caused by Physical Training of Freshmen Students Based on 3T MRI and Automatic Cartilage Segmentation Technology: A Prospective Study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Multimodal Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Diagnose Knee Osteoarthritis under Artificial Intelligence.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Quantitative MRI evaluation of articular cartilage in patients with meniscus tear.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Comparison of Clinical and Imaging Outcomes of Different Doses of Adipose-Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction Cell Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the reproducibility of the automatic cartilage segmentation method using a prototype KneeCaP software (version 1.3; Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) and to compare the difference in cartilage volume (CV) between the normal knee joint and knee osteoarthritis (KOA) of different degrees by using the above software. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 62 subjects with knee OA and 29 healthy control subjects. The cartilage lesion patients were divided into a mild-to-moderate OA group (n = 29) and severe OA group (n = 33). Automatic cartilage segmentation was performed on all the subjects, and among them, 19 knee cases were randomly selected to also do the manual cartilage segmentation. Statistical significance was determined with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Pearson correlation coefficient. Automatic segmentation was compared with the manual one. The relative cartilage volume percentages of the femur, tibia, and patella in the normal control/mild-to-moderate/severe OA groups were assessed.
resultsComparing the cartilage volumes derived by manual and automatic segmentation, the ICC value for the knee joint, patella, femur, or tibia was 0.784, 0.815, 0.740, and 0.797. The relative cartilage volume percentages of the femur, tibia, and patella in the normal control/mild-to-moderate/severe OA groups were 57.28%/59.30%/62.45% (femur), 25.35%/23.46%/21.84% (tibia), and 17.37%/17.24%/15.71% (patella), respectively. Compared with the normal control group, the relative tibia cartilage volume percentage was lower in the mild-to-moderate OA group and the severe OA group. Corresponding index showed a similar difference between the mild-to-moderate OA group and the severe OA group (p < 0.001).
conclusionThis study demonstrated that the relative cartilage volume percentage is correlated with the semi-quantitative systems and may be a preferred outcome measure in clinical studies of OA. Automatic cartilage segmentation using KneeCaP delivered reliable results on high-spatial-resolution 3 T MR images for the healthy, mild-moderate OA patients. Key Points • The cartilage automatic segmentation has excellent reproducibility and was not affected by inter-observer variation. • The relative cartilage volume percentage is correlated with the semi-quantitative systems and may be a preferred outcome measure in clinical studies of OA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33026551What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.