Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36243308›Full record

ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage2023

The KNee OsteoArthritis Prediction (KNOAP2020) challenge: An image analysis challenge to predict incident symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis from MRI and X-ray images.

J Hirvasniemi, J Runhaar, R A van der Heijden, M Zokaeinikoo, M Yang, X Li, J Tan, H R Rajamohan, Y Zhou, C M Deniz and 22 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Interleukin-6 as a Marker of Joint Damage in Osteoarthritis: A Study of Its Pro-inflammatory Impacts.Clinical medicine insights. Arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal applications: a primer for radiologists.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. ShapeMed-Knee: A Dataset and Neural Shape Model Benchmark for Modeling 3D Femurs.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

32 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

J HirvasniemiDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.hirvasniemi@erasmusmc.nl.
J RunhaarDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
R A van der HeijdenDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
M ZokaeinikooDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
M YangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
X LiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
J TanDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Health, New York, USA.
H R RajamohanDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Health, New York, USA.
Y ZhouDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Health, New York, USA.
C M DenizDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Health, New York, USA.
F CalivaDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
C IriondoDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
J J LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
F LiuDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
A M MartinezDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
N NamiriDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
V PedoiaDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
E PanfilovResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
N BayramogluResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
H H NguyenResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
M T NieminenResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
S SaarakkalaResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
A TiulpinResearch Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
E LinAkousist Co., Ltd., Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
A LiAkousist Co., Ltd., Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
V LiAkousist Co., Ltd., Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
E B DamDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
A S ChaudhariDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
R KijowskiDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Health, New York, USA.
S Bierma-ZeinstraDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Orthopedics & Sport Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
E H G OeiDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
S KleinDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
University of California, San Francisco · USErasmus MC · NLNYU Langone Health · USUniversity of Oulu · FICleveland Clinic · USOulu University Hospital · FIStanford University · USUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

TR&D 4: Revealing Microstructure: Biophysical modeling and validation for discovery and clinical careP41EB017183 · NIBIB · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Daniel K Sodickson · 2014 to 2026
$19.3M
Training and DisseminationP41EB015891 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GLOVER, GARY H · 2012 to 2019
$10.7M
Rapid MRI for Evaluation of OsteoarthritisR01EB002524 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Akshay Chaudhari, Garry E Gold · 2003 to 2026
$10.1M
Rapid Low-Cost Quantitative 3D MRI and Gait Assessment of the KneeR01AR077604 · NIAMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HARGREAVES, BRIAN ANDREW · 2020 to 2024
$3.2M
Development and Validation of Radiation-Free Pediatric Renal Function QuantificationR01EB026136 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI VASANAWALA, SHREYAS S · 2018 to 2021
$2.7M
Deep Learning-based Imaging Biomarkers for Knee OsteoarthritisR01AR074453 · NIAMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI DENIZ, CEM MURAT · 2019 to 2023
$2.5M
Quantitative 3D Diffusion and Relaxometry MRI of the KneeR01AR063643 · NIAMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HARGREAVES, BRIAN ANDREW · 2013 to 2017
$2.5M
Advanced MR Imaging of Early OsteoarthritisK24AR062068 · NIAMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GOLD, GARRY E · 2012 to 2022
$1.7M
Automated Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Patient Outcome Prediction using Deep LearningK25AR078928 · NIAMS · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI Mingrui Yang · 2022 to 2026
$678k
NIAMS NIH HHS K24 AR062068NIAMS NIH HHS K25 AR078928NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR063643NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR074453NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR077604NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015891NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB017183NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB002524NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026136
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe KNee OsteoArthritis Prediction (KNOAP2020) challenge was organized to objectively compare methods for the prediction of incident symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis within 78 months on a test set with blinded ground truth.

designThe challenge participants were free to use any available data sources to train their models. A test set of 423 knees from the Prevention of Knee Osteoarthritis in Overweight Females (PROOF) study consisting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and X-ray image data along with clinical risk factors at baseline was made available to all challenge participants. The ground truth outcomes, i.e., which knees developed incident symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis (according to the combined ACR criteria) within 78 months, were not provided to the participants. To assess the performance of the submitted models, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROCAUC) and balanced accuracy (BACC).

resultsSeven teams submitted 23 entries in total. A majority of the algorithms were trained on data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. The model with the highest ROCAUC (0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.70)) used deep learning to extract information from X-ray images combined with clinical variables. The model with the highest BACC (0.59 (95% CI: 0.52-0.65)) ensembled three different models that used automatically extracted X-ray and MRI features along with clinical variables.

conclusionThe KNOAP2020 challenge established a benchmark for predicting incident symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Accurate prediction of incident symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis is a complex and still unsolved problem requiring additional investigation.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeFemaleHumansKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiographyX-RaysDeep learningKnee osteoarthritisMachine learningMagnetic resonance imagingPredictionRadiography

Identifiers

PMID36243308
PMCPMC10323696
OpenAlexW4304690545

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.