ArticleJournal of biomechanics2026
The application of transfer learning to T1ρ MRI tibiofemoral cartilage segmentation.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Proteoglycans are critical to the ability of cartilage to withstand loading, and their concentration can be probed in vivo through measurement of T1ρ MRI relaxation times. Machine learning models have demonstrated the potential to replace manual segmentation of MR images but are often tailored to a specific MRI sequence. Promisingly, transfer learning provides an avenue to leverage information learned by previous models to improve new model performance. Thus, the purpose of this work was to evaluate the utility of transfer learning with source models trained for the same segmentation task (tibiofemoral cartilage) but different MRI sequence (double-echo steady-state vs. T1ρ). For model training, a U-Net architecture, a dice similarity coefficient (DSC) loss function, and a hyperparameter optimization grid search were utilized. Seventy-four T1ρ scans were used to develop and evaluate the models (training: 42, validation: 16, testing: 16). Finally, the optimal transfer learning and non-transfer learning models were applied to the testing set, where model-generated segmentations and T1ρ relaxation times were compared to manually segmented scans. Transfer learning improved DSCs for both the tibial (+1.2 %) and femoral (+0.8 %) cartilage. Furthermore, transfer learning improved the models' ability to measure T1ρ relaxation times, lowering the mean difference relative to manual segmentation from 1.0 % to 0.1 % for tibial cartilage (ICC increased from 0.93 to 0.95) and from 0.6 % to 0.5 % for femoral cartilage (ICC remained at 0.99). These results demonstrate the benefit of utilizing this transfer learning approach and justify using these models in future studies evaluating tibiofemoral cartilage proteoglycan content.
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.