Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36196596›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2022

Comparison of tibial alignment parameters based on clinically relevant anatomical landmarks : a deep learning radiological analysis.

Seong J Jang, Kyle N Kunze, Zachary R Brilliant, Melissa Henson, David J Mayman, Seth A Jerabek, Jonathan M Vigdorchik, Peter K Sculco

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Femoral diaphysis malunion: An overview.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Seong J JangWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9967-9476
Kyle N KunzeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0363-3482
Zachary R BrilliantAdult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Melissa HensonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
David J MaymanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Seth A JerabekDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Jonathan M VigdorchikDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Peter K SculcoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Hospital for Special Surgery · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsAccurate identification of the ankle joint centre is critical for estimating tibial coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the current study was to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the accuracy and effect of using different radiological anatomical landmarks to quantify mechanical alignment in relation to a traditionally defined radiological ankle centre.

methodsPatients with full-limb radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A sub-cohort of 250 radiographs were annotated for landmarks relevant to knee alignment and used to train a deep learning (U-Net) workflow for angle calculation on the entire database. The radiological ankle centre was defined as the midpoint of the superior talus edge/tibial plafond. Knee alignment (hip-knee-ankle angle) was compared against 1) midpoint of the most prominent malleoli points, 2) midpoint of the soft-tissue overlying malleoli, and 3) midpoint of the soft-tissue sulcus above the malleoli.

resultsA total of 932 bilateral full-limb radiographs (1,864 knees) were measured at a rate of 20.63 seconds/image. The knee alignment using the radiological ankle centre was accurate against ground truth radiologist measurements (inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99)). Compared to the radiological ankle centre, the mean midpoint of the malleoli was 2.3 mm (SD 1.3) lateral and 5.2 mm (SD 2.4) distal, shifting alignment by 0.34

conclusionThe current study leveraged AI to create a consistent and objective model that can estimate patient-specific adjustments necessary for optimal landmark usage in extramedullary and computer-guided navigation for tibial coronal alignment to match radiological planning.Cite this article:

Indexed as

Ankleankle jointArtificial intelligenceHip-knee-ankle (HKA) angleKnee alignmentkneesMachine learningmalleoliMechanical alignmentosteoarthritisradiographssoft-tissuesTibial alignmenttotal knee arthroplasty (TKA)valgus

Identifiers

PMID36196596
PMCPMC9626868
OpenAlexW4302276119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.