Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41550414›Full record

ReviewOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2026

Clinical validation of fully automated (peri-)articular tissue analysis for assessing osteoarthritis progression: A narrative review.

Wolfgang Wirth, Jana Eder

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Wolfgang WirthChondrometrics GmbH, Freilassing, Germany.
Jana EderResearch Program for Musculoskeletal Imaging, Center for Anatomy and Cell Biology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous studies have presented fully automated techniques for assessing structural osteoarthritis (OA) progression, with recent work increasingly relying on deep learning (DL)-based methods. The objective of this narrative review was to summarize findings from studies comparing the validity of fully automated methods for assessing progression in (peri-) articular joint tissues with reference measures (e.g., manual segmentation) in clinical OA models. A literature search in PubMed and arXiv.org identified 873 studies. Of these, nine evaluated the clinical validity of fully automated longitudinal measures for assessing progression. Five met the inclusion criteria by comparing sensitivity to differences in change in clinically defined cohorts between fully automated vs. reference assessments, and four reported at least the sensitivity to change for both methods. One of the studies evaluated longitudinal change in radiographic joint space width, five change in MRI-based cartilage thickness, two change in cartilage composition, and one change in thigh muscle and adipose tissue cross-sectional areas. Most of the studies were based on DL methods and relied on data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). The included studies reported similar or greater sensitivity to change and similar discriminative power for detecting differences in change between clinically defined groups compared with reference measurements. Therefore, the techniques validated in these studies appear suitable for assessing structural progression provided that key requirements are met, including consistent imaging protocols, scanner settings, and data quality.

Indexed as

Clinical validationDeep learningFully automated analysisImagingOsteoarthritisProgression

Identifiers

PMID41550414
PMCPMC12803890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.