ArticlePloS one2025
Distribution of interscan measurement error in AI-based 3D MRI analysis of knee cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis.
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
- Article
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
purposeA novel AI-based 3D analysis system was developed to automatically extract bone and cartilage from MRI data and provide average cartilage thickness. This study aimed to analyze the interscan measurement error of knee cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis patients.
methodsFifty knee osteoarthritis patients underwent two scans using MRI systems from five different vendors. Each model included five Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KL) 1-2 and five KL3-4 patients. Cartilage thickness was automatically quantified for seven regions, and interscan measurement error was analyzed.
resultsIn the KL1-2 group, measurements with errors ≤0.05 mm, ≤ 0.10 mm, and ≤0.20 mm were 42%, 75%, and 97%, respectively. For the KL3-4 group, these proportions were 31%, 59%, and 90%. The entire cohort (KL1-4) showed errors ≤0.05 mm, ≤ 0.10 mm, and ≤0.20 mm in 37%, 67%, and 93% of measurements. Differences between KL1-2 and KL3-4 groups were significant for all thresholds.
conclusionOverall, 93% of interscan measurement errors were within 0.20 mm when using fully automatic MRI 3D analysis software to assess knee cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis patients. This study provides valuable insights into the reliability of automated cartilage thickness measurements across different disease severities and MRI systems.
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.