Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33026551›Full record

ArticleClinical rheumatology2021

Quantitative measurement of cartilage volume with automatic cartilage segmentation in knee osteoarthritis.

Wenjing Hou, Jun Zhao, Rui He, Jing Li, Yuan Ou, Mingshan Du, Xuanqi Xiong, Bing Xie, Lian Li, Xiaoyue Zhou and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

14 authors.

Wenjing Hou *Department of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China.
Jun Zhao *Department of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China.
Rui HeCentre of Joint Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Chongqing, 400038, China.
Jing LiDepartment of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China.
Yuan OuDepartment of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China.
Mingshan DuDepartment of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China.
Xuanqi XiongDepartment of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China.
Bing XieDepartment of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China.
Lian LiDepartment of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoyue ZhouMR Collaboration NEA, Siemens Healthcare Ltd., Shanghai, 201318, People's Republic of China.
Panli ZuoMR Collaboration NEA, Siemens Healthcare Ltd., Shanghai, 201318, People's Republic of China.
Esther RaithelSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Zhuoli ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Wei Chen *Department of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Gaotanyan 30, Shapingba, Chongqing, 400038, People's Republic of China. landcw@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6829-9067

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cartilage, ArticularOsteoarthritis, KneeGermanyHumansKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingReproducibility of ResultsTibiaCartilageKneeOsteoarthritisSegmentation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.