Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33782948›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2021

Automated analysis of rabbit knee calcified cartilage morphology using micro-computed tomography and deep learning.

Santeri J O Rytky, Lingwei Huang, Petri Tanska, Aleksei Tiulpin, Egor Panfilov, Walter Herzog, Rami K Korhonen, Simo Saarakkala, Mikko A J Finnilä

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Santeri J O RytkyResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9237-1356
Lingwei HuangDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-0653-018X
Petri TanskaDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9684-6902
Aleksei TiulpinResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-7852-4141
Egor PanfilovResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-2500-6375
Walter HerzogHuman Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5341-0033
Rami K KorhonenDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-3486-7855
Simo SaarakkalaResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-2850-5484
Mikko A J FinniläResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-3348-5759
University of Eastern Finland · FIOulu University Hospital · FIUniversity of Oulu · FIUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

CIHR FDN-143341
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Structural dynamics of calcified cartilage (CC) are poorly understood. Conventionally, CC structure is analyzed using histological sections. Micro-computed tomography (µCT) allows for three-dimensional (3D) imaging of mineralized tissues; however, the segmentation between bone and mineralized cartilage is challenging. Here, we present state-of-the-art deep learning segmentation for µCT images to assess 3D CC morphology. The sample includes 16 knees from 12 New Zealand White rabbits dissected into osteochondral samples from six anatomical regions: lateral and medial femoral condyles, lateral and medial tibial plateaus, femoral groove, and patella (n = 96). The samples were imaged with µCT and processed for conventional histology. Manually segmented CC from the images was used to train segmentation models with different encoder-decoder architectures. The models with the greatest out-of-fold evaluation Dice score were selected. CC thickness was compared across 24 regions, co-registered between the imaging modalities using Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. Finally, the anatomical CC thickness variation was assessed via a Linear Mixed Model analysis. The best segmentation models yielded average Dice of 0.891 and 0.807 for histology and µCT segmentation, respectively. The correlation between the co-registered regions was strong (r = 0.897, bias = 21.9 µm, standard deviation = 21.5 µm). Finally, both methods could separate the CC thickness between the patella, femoral, and tibial regions (p < 0.001). As a conclusion, the proposed µCT analysis allows for ex vivo 3D assessment of CC morphology. We demonstrated the biomedical relevance of the method by quantifying CC thickness in different anatomical regions with a varying mean thickness. CC was thickest in the patella and thinnest in the tibial plateau. Our method is relatively straightforward to implement into standard µCT analysis pipelines, allowing the analysis of CC morphology. In future research, µCT imaging might be preferable to histology, especially when analyzing dynamic changes in cartilage mineralization. It could also provide further understanding of 3D morphological changes that may occur in mineralized cartilage, such as thickening of the subchondral plate in osteoarthritis and other joint diseases.

Indexed as

AnimalsCartilage, ArticularDeep LearningFemaleRabbitsX-Ray Microtomographyanimal modelsbonehistologyosteoarthritissegmentation

Identifiers

PMID33782948
PMCPMC8273618
OpenAlexW3141187141

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.