ReviewOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2026
Clinical validation of fully automated (peri-)articular tissue analysis for assessing osteoarthritis progression: A narrative review.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.