MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2508185194 · doi:10.1007/s11999-016-5011-0

T1ρ Hip Cartilage Mapping in Assessing Patients With Cam Morphology: How Can We Optimize the Regions of Interest?

2016· article· en· W2508185194 sur OpenAlexafffund
Helen Anwander, Kawan Rakhra, Gerd Melkus, Paul E. Beaulé

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Établissements canadiensUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
Mots-clésMedicineSagittal planeDeformityOsteoarthritisOrthopedic surgeryCartilageCartilage damageSurgeryProspective cohort studyMagnetic resonance imagingRegion of interestRange of motionOrthodonticsRadiologyAnatomyArticular cartilagePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: T1ρ MRI has been shown feasible to detect the biochemical status of hip cartilage, but various region-of-interest strategies have been used, compromising the reproducibility and comparability between different institutions and studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were (1) to determine representative regions of interest (ROIs) for cartilage T1ρ mapping in hips with a cam deformity; and (2) to assess intra- and interobserver reliability for cartilage T1ρ mapping in hips with a cam deformity. METHODS: The local ethics committee approved this prospective study with written informed consent obtained. Between 2010 and 2013, in 54 hips (54 patients), T1ρ 1.5-T MRI was performed. Thirty-eight hips (38 patients; 89% male) with an average age of 35 ± 7.5 years (range, 23-51 tears) were diagnosed with a cam deformity; 16 hips (16 patients; 87% male) with an average age of 34 ± 7 years (range, 23-47 years) were included in the control group. Of the 38 patients with a cam deformity, 20 were pain-free and 18 symptomatic patients underwent surgery after 6 months of failed nonsurgical management of antiinflammatories and physical therapy. Exclusion criteria were radiologic sings of osteoarthritis with Tönnis Grade 2 or higher as well as previous hip surgery. Three region-of-interest (ROI) selections were analyzed: Method 1: as a whole; Method 2: as 36 to 54 small ROIs (sections of 30° in the sagittal plane and 3 mm in the transverse plane); Method 3a: as six ROIs (sections of 90° in the sagittal plane and one-third of the acetabular depth in the transverse plane: the anterosuperior and posterosuperior quadrants, divided into lateral, intermediate, and medial thirds); and Method 3b: as the ratio (anterosuperior over posterosuperior quadrant). ROIs in Method 3 represent the region of macroscopic cartilage damage, described in intraoperative findings. To asses interobserver reliability, 10 patients were analyzed by two observers (HA, GM). For intraobserver reliability, 20 hip MRIs were analyzed twice by one observer (HA). To assess interscan reliability, three patients underwent two scans within a time period of 2 weeks and were analyzed twice by one observer (HA). T1ρ values were compared using Student's t test. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and root mean square coefficient of variation (RMS-CV) were used to analyze intraobserver, interobserver, and interscan reliability. RESULTS: Patients with a cam deformity showed increased T1ρ values in the whole hip cartilage (mean: 34.0 ± 3.8 ms versus 31.4 ± 3.0 ms; mean difference: 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-0.4; p = 0.019; Method 1), mainly anterolateral (2), in the lateral and medial thirds of the anterosuperior quadrant (mean: 32.3 ± 4.9 ms versus 29.4 ± 4.1 ms; mean difference: 3.0; 95% CI, 5.8-0.2; p = 0.039 and mean 36.5 ± 5.6 ms versus 32.6 ± 3.8 ms; mean difference: 3.8; 95% CI, 6.9-0.8; p = 0.014), and in the medial third of the posterosuperior quadrant (mean: 34.4 ± 5.5 ms versus 31.1 ± 3.9 ms; mean difference: 3.1; 95% CI, 6.2-0.1; p = 0.039) (3a). The ratio was increased in the lateral third (mean: 1.00 ± 0.12 versus 0.90 ± 0.15; mean difference: 0.10; 95% CI, 0.18-0.2; p = 0.018) (3b). ICC and RMS-CV were 0.965 and 4% (intraobserver), 0.953 and 4% (interobserver), and 0.988 (all p < 0.001) and 9% (inter-MR scan), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage T1ρ MRI mapping in hips is feasible at 1.5 T with strong inter-, intraobserver, and inter-MR scan reliability. The six ROIs (Method 3) showed a difference of T1ρ values anterolateral quadrant, consistent with the dominant area of cartilage injury in cam femoroacetabular impingement, and antero- and posteromedial, indicating involvement of the entire hip cartilage health. The six ROIs (Method 3) have been shown feasible to assess cartilage damage in hips with a cam deformity using T1ρ MRI. We suggest applying this ROI selection for further studies using quantitative MRI for assessment of cartilage damage in hips with a cam deformity to achieve better comparability and reproducibility between different studies. The application of this ROI selection on hips with other deformities (eg, pincer deformity, developmental dysplasia of the hip, and acetabular retroversion) has to be analyzed and potentially adapted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,046

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,146
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations21
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchMême sujetOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsTravaux en français237 207