Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38302524›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Integration of Swin UNETR and statistical shape modeling for a semi-automated segmentation of the knee and biomechanical modeling of articular cartilage.

Reza Kakavand, Mehrdad Palizi, Peyman Tahghighi, Reza Ahmadi, Neha Gianchandani, Samer Adeeb, Roberto Souza, W Brent Edwards, Amin Komeili

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Reza KakavandDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT 216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Mehrdad PaliziCivil and Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Peyman TahghighiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT 216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Reza AhmadiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT 216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Neha GianchandaniDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT 216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Samer AdeebCivil and Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Roberto SouzaDepartment of Electrical and Software Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
W Brent EdwardsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT 216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Amin KomeiliDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT 216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. amin.komeili@ucalgary.ca.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 401610
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulation studies, such as finite element (FE) modeling, provide insight into knee joint mechanics without patient involvement. Generic FE models mimic the biomechanical behavior of the tissue, but overlook variations in geometry, loading, and material properties of a population. Conversely, subject-specific models include these factors, resulting in enhanced predictive precision, but are laborious and time intensive. The present study aimed to enhance subject-specific knee joint FE modeling by incorporating a semi-automated segmentation algorithm using a 3D Swin UNETR for an initial segmentation of the femur and tibia, followed by a statistical shape model (SSM) adjustment to improve surface roughness and continuity. For comparison, a manual FE model was developed through manual segmentation (i.e., the de-facto standard approach). Both FE models were subjected to gait loading and the predicted mechanical response was compared. The semi-automated segmentation achieved a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of over 98% for both the femur and tibia. Hausdorff distance (mm) between the semi-automated and manual segmentation was 1.4 mm. The mechanical results (max principal stress and strain, fluid pressure, fibril strain, and contact area) showed no significant differences between the manual and semi-automated FE models, indicating the effectiveness of the proposed semi-automated segmentation in creating accurate knee joint FE models. We have made our semi-automated models publicly accessible to support and facilitate biomechanical modeling and medical image segmentation efforts ( https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/k5hdc9cz7w/1 ).

Indexed as

Cartilage, ArticularFemurHumansKneeKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingTibia

Identifiers

PMID38302524
PMCPMC10834430

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.