ArticleBone & joint research2026
MRI-based 3D cartilage modelling in the elbow joint : a validation study with potential for biomechanical modelling.
Article in Bone & joint research, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To construct and validate a 3D MRI-based cartilage model of the elbow joint by comparing it with laser-scanned models and to assess how cartilage morphology influences intra-articular stress distribution through finite element analysis (FEA). Methods: Seven formalin-fixed cadaveric elbows were scanned using high-resolution MRI (voxel size: 0.375 × 0.375 × 0.400 mm), with sequences selected based on the contrast-to-noise ratio. Cartilage models of the distal humerus, radial head, and proximal ulna were reconstructed and validated against laser-scanned reference models. Validation metrics included cartilage thickness differences, surface-to-surface distances, and Dice similarity coefficients. Subsequently, FEA was performed using models with and without cartilage, under physiological loading, to evaluate the intra-articular stress distribution. Results: MRI-based and laser-scanned models showed similar cartilage thickness distributions, with differences within or close to the imaging resolution. The median cartilage thicknesses measured using the MRI-based and laser-scanned models were 1.15 mm (IQR 0.97 to 1.54) and 1.25 mm (IQR 1.14 to 1.29) in the distal humerus, 1.15 mm (IQR 0.97 to 1.18) and 1.03 mm (IQR 1.01 to 1.14) in the radial head, and 1.06 mm (IQR 0.93 to 1.21) and 1.05 mm (IQR 1.00 to 1.10) in the proximal ulna, respectively. The surface-to-surface root mean square distances were < 0.40 mm, and the Dice coefficients exceeded 0.96. FEA revealed physiologically plausible stress concentration patterns at anatomical contact areas only in models incorporating the cartilage. Conclusion: The 3D MRI-based cartilage models have high geometrical accuracy and biomechanical validity. These models offer a noninvasive tool for assessing cartilage morphology and joint mechanics, and may provide a foundation for future studies investigating the pathophysiology of elbow osteoarthritis.
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.