ReviewInternational orthopaedics2026
Artificial intelligence-based segmentation and quantitative assessment of knee cartilage in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International orthopaedics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeQuantitative MRI enables scalable assessment of knee cartilage, but the validity of artificial intelligence (AI)-derived measurements depends on more than spatial overlap. This review evaluated cartilage-segmentation accuracy and separately synthesized evidence on measurement agreement, longitudinal responsiveness, external validation, and prognostic utility. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to 1 February 2026. Dice coefficients were logit-transformed. Sampling variances were derived from reported standard deviations and test-set sizes using the delta method. The primary analysis used three-level random-effects meta-analysis with experiments nested within studies; complete cases were used when a sampling variance could be calculated. Prediction intervals and a prespecified one-estimate-per-study sensitivity analysis were reported. Analyses using imputed compartment-specific median standard deviations were secondary sensitivity analyses.
resultsFifty-seven studies met the review eligibility criteria. In dependency-aware complete-case analyses of deep-learning models, pooled Dice coefficients were 0.882 (95% CI 0.854-0.905; 95% prediction interval 0.690-0.962; 41 estimates from 18 studies) for femoral cartilage, 0.869 (0.847-0.888; prediction interval 0.731-0.941; 54 estimates from 18 studies) for tibial cartilage, and 0.857 (0.837-0.875; prediction interval 0.737-0.928; 25 estimates from 15 studies) for patellar cartilage. One-estimate-per-study analyses produced similar point estimates. Only three complete-case femoral experiments from three studies were independently externally validated; their pooled estimate was imprecise (0.859, 95% CI 0.785-0.911). Reliability, longitudinal, and prognostic evidence was heterogeneous and predominantly internally validated.
conclusionAI-based knee cartilage segmentation demonstrates promising technical accuracy, but the broad prediction intervals, dependence on repeatedly used public cohorts, inconsistent reporting of dispersion, and sparse independent external validation limit generalizability. Evidence is substantially less mature for quantitative agreement, longitudinal responsiveness, and clinical prognosis than for segmentation accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42782519What 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.