Comparison of 3D Ultrasound Imaging to Computed Tomography in Knee Osteophyte Depiction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Osteophytes (marginal bony outgrowths) are a common radiographic marker of osteoarthritis (OA) and joint degeneration. However, due to their variable morphologic composition, osteophytes are not accurately depicted using conventional imaging modalities. This represents problems for evaluating the anatomical changes of the osteoarthritic joint, and for the design of surgical interventions that rely on the accuracy of pre‐operative images. Studies have shown that ultrasound is a promising tool to detect articular changes such as the presence of osteophytes, and to monitor the progression of OA. Furthermore, 3D ultrasound (3DUS), a tool for volume rendering and surface representation, can potentially offer a means to quantify and depict osteophytes. Objective To compare osteophyte depiction in the knee joint using 3DUS and conventional Computed Tomography (CT) and to evaluate the ability of 3DUS at quantifying osteophyte surface depiction. Methods Eleven fresh‐frozen‐thawed human cadaveric knees were pre‐scanned for the presence of osteophytes according to a previously validated US semi‐quantitative grading system. Five knee sides with visible signs of OA were selected; 3DUS and CT images were obtained, segmented and digitally 3D reconstructed. The knees were dissected and Structured Light Scanner (SLS) images of the physical joint surface were obtained. Using a custom software, surface matching and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of each of the evaluated modalities in capturing the anatomy of the bone surface at the sites of osteophytes. 3DUS and CT models were compared to the SLS model, which was used as ground truth. Results The average RMSE for 3DUS to SLS and for CT to SLS model comparisons were 0.87 mm and 0.95 mm respectively. No statistical difference was found between 3DUS and CT (p=0.43). Comparative observation of imaging modalities set against each other suggests that 3DUS is superior in depicting osteophytes with cartilage and fibrocartilage tissue characteristics compared to CT. Conclusions 3D Ultrasound can depict features of OA such as osteophytes together with their cartilaginous portion, which is not accurately represented using CT. It is feasible to compare 3DUS to conventional imaging for bone surface depiction within the knee joint. Lastly, 3DUS can provide useful information about not only the presence, but the extent of osteophytes. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».