Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39789362›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025

Swin UNETR Segmentation with Automated Geometry Filtering for Biomechanical Modeling of Knee Joint Cartilage.

Reza Kakavand, Peyman Tahghighi, Reza Ahmadi, W Brent Edwards, Amin Komeili

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Reza KakavandDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Peyman TahghighiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Reza AhmadiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
W Brent EdwardsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Amin KomeiliDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, CCIT216, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. amin.komeili@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0938-6099

Funding

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

Abstract

purposeSimulation studies, such as finite element (FE) modeling, offer insights into knee joint biomechanics, which may not be achieved through experimental methods without direct involvement of patients. While generic FE models have been used to predict tissue biomechanics, they overlook variations in population-specific geometry, loading, and material properties. In contrast, subject-specific models account for these factors, delivering enhanced predictive precision but requiring significant effort and time for development.

methodsThis study aimed to facilitate subject-specific knee joint FE modeling by integrating an automated cartilage segmentation algorithm using a 3D Swin UNETR. This algorithm provided initial segmentation of knee cartilage, followed by automated geometry filtering to refine surface roughness and continuity. In addition to the standard metrics of image segmentation performance, such as Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance, the method's effectiveness was also assessed in FE simulation. Nine pairs of knee cartilage FE models, using manual and automated segmentation methods, were developed to compare the predicted stress and strain responses during gait.

resultsThe automated segmentation achieved high Dice similarity coefficients of 89.4% for femoral and 85.1% for tibial cartilage, with a Hausdorff distance of 2.3 mm between the automated and manual segmentation. Mechanical results including maximum principal stress and strain, fluid pressure, fibril strain, and contact area showed no significant differences between the manual and automated FE models.

conclusionThese findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed automated segmentation method in creating accurate knee joint FE models. The automated models developed in this study have been made publicly accessible to support biomechanical modeling and medical image segmentation studies ( https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/dc832g7j5m/1 ).

Indexed as

Cartilage, ArticularKnee JointModels, BiologicalAdultAlgorithmsBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleFinite Element AnalysisHumansMaleCartilage segmentationFE modelingGeometry filteringSubject-specificSwin UNETR

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.