ArticlePloS one2025
Same-model and cross-model variability in knee cartilage thickness measurements using 3D MRI systems.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between the cartilage area ratio derived from 3D MRI and patient-reported symptoms in medial knee osteoarthritis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Distribution of interscan measurement error in AI-based 3D MRI analysis of knee cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMagnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) based three-dimensional analysis of knee cartilage has evolved to become fully automatic. However, when implementing these measurements across multiple clinical centers, scanner variability becomes a critical consideration. Our purposes were to quantify and compare same-model variability (between repeated scans on the same MRI system) and cross-model variability (across different MRI systems) in knee cartilage thickness measurements using MRI scanners from five manufacturers, as analyzed with a specific 3D volume analysis software.
methodsTen healthy volunteers (eight males and two females, aged 22-60 years) underwent two scans of their right knee on 3T MRI systems from five manufacturers (Canon, Fujifilm, GE, Philips, and Siemens). The imaging protocol included fat-suppressed spoiled gradient echo and proton density weighted sequences. Cartilage regions were automatically segmented into 7 subregions using a specific deep learning-based 3D volume analysis software. This resulted in 350 measurements for same-model variability and 2,800 measurements for cross-model variability.
resultsFor same-model variability, 82% of measurements showed variability ≤0.10 mm, and 98% showed variability ≤0.20 mm. For cross-model variability, 51% showed variability ≤0.10 mm, and 84% showed variability ≤0.20 mm. The mean same-model variability (0.06 ± 0.05 mm) was significantly lower than cross-model variability (0.11 ± 0.09 mm) (p < 0.001).
conclusionThis study demonstrates that knee cartilage thickness measurements exhibit significantly higher variability across different MRI systems compared to repeated measurements on the same system, when analyzed using this specific software. This finding has important implications for multi-center studies and longitudinal assessments using different MRI systems and highlights the software-dependent nature of such variability assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.