ArticleOsteoarthritis imaging2026
3-D landmarking repeatability emphasizes challenges in scan positioning during weight bearing CT of the knee.
Article in Osteoarthritis imaging, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMaintaining repeatability of positioning during knee weight bearing CT (WBCT) acquisition can be challenging. We evaluated a manual bone landmarking system and automatically derived angulation metrics to advance understanding of joint positioning repeatability.
designBilateral knee WBCTs for 14 recruited individuals taken at a mean ± SD interval of 14.9 ± 8.1 days using a frame and laser guidance for positioning were used in this technical study. One observer manually placed 33 bony landmarks at each knee, verified by a second observer who also placed landmarks at each end of the scan range in the centre of the bone. Landmark repeatability error was the mean ± SD absolute distance (mm) between baseline and follow-up. Automated methods for knee flexion angle (KFA), valgus and vertical positioning alignment were developed from the landmarks.
resultsMost repeatable landmarks were around the patella and proximal fibula with best performance at the proximal fibula tip (1.3 ± 0.5 mm). Least repeatable landmarks were along shallow curves, e.g. central tibial margins and around the trochlea, with worst performance at the tibial tuberosity (5.5 ± 4.7 mm). Mean repeatability for 85% of placed landmarks was in the 1-4 mm range. Valgus alignment absolute repeatability error ranged from 0.1-2.1° and for KFA was 0.3-15.5°, neither dependent on KL grade severity. Worst vertical scan range placement error was ∼60 mm.
conclusionDespite guidance systems, repeatability of KFA and vertical positioning could be optimised at the time of acquisition. This would provide a robust platform for evaluation of metrics such as meniscal extrusion and 3-D joint space width from WBCT that have shown promise in the evaluation of knee OA.
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.