Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38667988›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging2024

Automated Landmark Annotation for Morphometric Analysis of Distal Femur and Proximal Tibia.

Jonas Grammens, Annemieke Van Haver, Imelda Lumban-Gaol, Femke Danckaers, Peter Verdonk, Jan Sijbers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Jonas GrammensAntwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9943-3329
Annemieke Van HaverMoRe Institute, Deurne, 2100 Antwerp, Belgium.
Imelda Lumban-GaolNicolaas Institute of Constructive Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation for Arthroplasty and Sports Medicine, Medistra Hospital, Jakarta 12950, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-0399-902X
Femke Danckaersimec-VisionLab, Department of Physics, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.
Peter VerdonkAntwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.
Jan Sijbersimec-VisionLab, Department of Physics, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, 2610 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4225-2487

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 814444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Manual anatomical landmarking for morphometric knee bone characterization in orthopedics is highly time-consuming and shows high operator variability. Therefore, automation could be a substantial improvement for diagnostics and personalized treatments relying on landmark-based methods. Applications include implant sizing and planning, meniscal allograft sizing, and morphological risk factor assessment. For twenty MRI-based 3D bone and cartilage models, anatomical landmarks were manually applied by three experts, and morphometric measurements for 3D characterization of the distal femur and proximal tibia were calculated from all observations. One expert performed the landmark annotations three times. Intra- and inter-observer variations were assessed for landmark position and measurements. The mean of the three expert annotations served as the ground truth. Next, automated landmark annotation was performed by elastic deformation of a template shape, followed by landmark optimization at extreme positions (highest/lowest/most medial/lateral point). The results of our automated annotation method were compared with ground truth, and percentages of landmarks and measurements adhering to different tolerances were calculated. Reliability was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). For the manual annotations, the inter-observer absolute difference was 1.53 ± 1.22 mm (mean ± SD) for the landmark positions and 0.56 ± 0.55 mm (mean ± SD) for the morphometric measurements. Automated versus manual landmark extraction differed by an average of 2.05 mm. The automated measurements demonstrated an absolute difference of 0.78 ± 0.60 mm (mean ± SD) from their manual counterparts. Overall, 92% of the automated landmarks were within 4 mm of the expert mean position, and 95% of all morphometric measurements were within 2 mm of the expert mean measurements. The ICC (manual versus automated) for automated morphometric measurements was between 0.926 and 1. Manual annotations required on average 18 min of operator interaction time, while automated annotations only needed 7 min of operator-independent computing time. Considering the time consumption and variability among observers, there is a clear need for a more efficient, standardized, and operator-independent algorithm. Our automated method demonstrated excellent accuracy and reliability for landmark positioning and morphometric measurements. Above all, this automated method will lead to a faster, scalable, and operator-independent morphometric analysis of the knee.

Indexed as

3D landmark analysisknee MRImorphometricsorthopedics

Identifiers

PMID38667988
PMCPMC11051533

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.