ArticleScientific reports2022
Automatic estimation of knee effusion from limited MRI data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodality imaging considerations for genicular artery embolization in knee osteoarthritis.World journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Reliability of Semi-Automated Volumetric Quantification of Knee Effusion Using MRI After Acl Injury.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2026Observational
- Synovial Parasitosis and Inflammatory Biomarker Profiles in Osteoarthritis: Associations with Host and Therapeutic Factors.Acta parasitologica · 2025Article
- Recent evolution in imaging techniques for assessment of synovitis in osteoarthritis.Skeletal radiology · 2025Review
- Imaging-based measures of synovitis in knee osteoarthritis: A scoping review and narrative synthesis.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2025Review
- ShapeMed-Knee: A Dataset and Neural Shape Model Benchmark for Modeling 3D Femurs.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2025Article
- ShapeMed-Knee: A Dataset and Neural Shape Model Benchmark for Modeling 3D Femurs.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Automatic detection and visualization of temporomandibular joint effusion with deep neural network.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Update on recent developments in imaging of inflammation in osteoarthritis: a narrative review.Skeletal radiology · 2023Review
- Artificial-Intelligence-Aided Radiographic Diagnostic of Knee Osteoarthritis Leads to a Higher Association of Clinical Findings with Diagnostic Ratings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Low-field MRI: Clinical promise and challenges.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023Review
- Automated detection of knee cystic lesions on magnetic resonance imaging using deep learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Knee effusion is a common comorbidity in osteoarthritis. To quantify the amount of effusion, semi quantitative assessment scales have been developed that classify fluid levels on an integer scale from 0 to 3. In this work, we investigated the use of a neural network (NN) that used MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Scores effusion-synovitis (MOAKS-ES) values to distinguish physiologic fluid levels from higher fluid levels in MR images of the knee. We evaluate its effectiveness on low-resolution images to examine its potential in low-field, low-cost MRI. We created a dense NN (dNN) for detecting effusion, defined as a nonzero MOAKS-ES score, from MRI scans. Both the training and performance evaluation of the network were conducted using public radiological data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). The model was trained using sagittal turbo-spin-echo (TSE) MR images from 1628 knees. The accuracy was compared to VGG16, a commonly used convolutional classification network. Robustness of the dNN was assessed by adding zero-mean Gaussian noise to the test images with a standard deviation of 5-30% of the maximum test data intensity. Also, inference was performed on a test data set of 163 knees, which includes a smaller test set of 36 knees that was also assessed by a musculoskeletal radiologist and the performance of the dNN and the radiologist compared. For the larger test data set, the dNN performed with an average accuracy of 62%. In addition, the network proved robust to noise, classifying the noisy images with minimal degradation to accuracy. When given MRI scans with 5% Gaussian noise, the network performed similarly, with an average accuracy of 61%. For the smaller 36-knee test data set, assessed both by the dNN and by a radiologist, the network performed better than the radiologist on average. Classifying knee effusion from low-resolution images with a similar accuracy as a human radiologist using neural networks is feasible, suggesting automatic assessment of images from low-cost, low-field scanners as a potentially useful assessment tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.