Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34980107›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Clinical validation of the use of prototype software for automatic cartilage segmentation to quantify knee cartilage in volunteers.

Ping Zhang, Ran Xu Zhang, Xiao Shuai Chen, Xiao Yue Zhou, Esther Raithel, Jian Ling Cui, Jian Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ping ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei Province Biomechanical Key Laboratory of Orthopedics, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Ran Xu ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei Province Biomechanical Key Laboratory of Orthopedics, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Xiao Shuai ChenDepartment of Radiology, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei Province Biomechanical Key Laboratory of Orthopedics, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Xiao Yue ZhouMR Collaboration, Siemens Healthineers Ltd., Shanghai, China.
Esther RaithelSiemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany.
Jian Ling CuiDepartment of Radiology, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei Province Biomechanical Key Laboratory of Orthopedics, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Jian ZhaoDepartment of Radiology, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei Province Biomechanical Key Laboratory of Orthopedics, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China. zhaojiansohu@126.com.
Hebei Medical University · CNSiemens (China) · CNSiemens Healthcare (Germany) · DEThird Hospital of Hebei Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe cartilage segmentation algorithms make it possible to accurately evaluate the morphology and degeneration of cartilage. There are some factors (location of cartilage subregions, hydrarthrosis and cartilage degeneration) that may influence the accuracy of segmentation. It is valuable to evaluate and compare the accuracy and clinical value of volume and mean T2* values generated directly from automatic knee cartilage segmentation with those from manually corrected results using prototype software.

methodThirty-two volunteers were recruited, all of whom underwent right knee magnetic resonance imaging examinations. Morphological images were obtained using a three-dimensional (3D) high-resolution Double-Echo in Steady-State (DESS) sequence, and biochemical images were obtained using a two-dimensional T2* mapping sequence. Cartilage score criteria ranged from 0 to 2 and were obtained using the Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS). The femoral, patellar, and tibial cartilages were automatically segmented and divided into subregions using the post-processing prototype software. Afterwards, all the subregions were carefully checked and manual corrections were done where needed. The dice coefficient correlations for each subregion by the automatic segmentation were calculated.

resultsCartilage volume after applying the manual correction was significantly lower than automatic segmentation (P < 0.05). The percentages of the cartilage volume change for each subregion after manual correction were all smaller than 5%. In all the subregions, the mean T2* relaxation time within manual corrected subregions was significantly lower than in regions after automatic segmentation (P < 0.05). The average time for the automatic segmentation of the whole knee was around 6 min, while the average time for manual correction of the whole knee was around 27 min.

conclusionsAutomatic segmentation of cartilage volume has a high dice coefficient correlation and it can provide accurate quantitative information about cartilage efficiently without individual bias. Advances in knowledge: Magnetic resonance imaging is the most promising method to detect structural changes in cartilage tissue. Unfortunately, due to the structure and morphology of the cartilages obtaining accurate segmentations can be problematic. There are some factors (location of cartilage subregions, hydrarthrosis and cartilage degeneration) that may influence segmentation accuracy. We therefore assessed the factors that influence segmentations error.

Indexed as

Cartilage, ArticularHumansKneeKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingSoftwareVolunteersAutomatic segmentationCartilage segmentationManually correctedMRI

Identifiers

PMID34980107
PMCPMC8725480
OpenAlexW4206400657

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.