Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40822965›Full record

ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2025

Comparison between coronal FLASH and sagittal double echo steady state MRI in detecting longitudinal cartilage thickness change by fully automated segmentation - Data from the FNIH biomarker cohort.

Felix Eckstein, Akshay S Chaudhari, David J Hunter, Wolfgang Wirth

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00080171 (Osteoarthritis Initiative), which is not on this 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.

NCT00080171 completednot on this map

Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI): A Knee Health Study

TypeobservationalSponsorNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)Ran2004 to 2015Enrolled4,796ConditionsOsteoarthritis, Knee Osteoarthritis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Felix EcksteinResearch Program for Musculoskeletal Imaging, Center for Anatomy and Cell Biology & Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Arthritis and Rehabilitation (LBIAR), Paracelsus Medical University (PMU) Salzburg, Austria.
Akshay S ChaudhariStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
David J HunterRheumatology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, Kolling Institute, University Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Wolfgang WirthResearch Program for Musculoskeletal Imaging, Center for Anatomy and Cell Biology & Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Arthritis and Rehabilitation (LBIAR), Paracelsus Medical University (PMU) Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI-) based automated cartilage analysis demonstrated similar sensitivity to change and only slighty inferior differentiation between radiographic progressors and non-progressors compared with manual segmentation. However, this finding was based on DESS MRI from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), whereas the vast majority of multicenter clinical trials rely on T1-weighted gradient echo (e.g. FLASH). Here we directly compare fully automated analysis of coronal FLASH vs. sagittal DESS, and vs. manually segmented DESS, in a sample with both FLASH and DESS MRI acquisitions. Design: Convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithms were trained on 86 radiographically osteoarthritic knees with manual expert segmentation of the medial and lateral femorotibial cartilages (coronal FLASH and sagittal DESS). Post-processing involved automated registration of CNN-based subchondral bone segmentation to reference areas. The models were applied to baseline and two-year follow-up MRIs of radiographic progressor and non-progressor knees in the Foundation of the NIH Biomarker sample of the OAI. Results: Of the 322 FNIH knees with both FLASH and DESS; 157 were radiographic progressors. Sensitivity to medial femorotibial cartilage thickness change (standardized response mean) in the progressor subcohort was -0.81 for FLASH (automated analysis), -0.74 for automatically, and -0.72 for manually segmented DESS. Differentiation from non-progressors (Cohen's D) was -0.82. -0.70, and -0.87, respectively. Conclusions: Fully automated, AI-based cartilage segmentation with advanced post-processing reveals that coronal FLASH is at least as discriminative between radiographic progressor vs. non-progressor knees as sagittal DESS MRI. Yet, performance of fully automated segmentation is slightly inferior to manual analysis with expert quality control. Trial id: Clinicaltrials.gov identification: NCT00080171.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAutomated segmentationCartilage thicknessMR imagingOsteoarthritis progression

Identifiers

PMID40822965
PMCPMC12356010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.