MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981995703 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2492071870

Meniscal Measurements of T1<sub>ρ</sub>and T2 at MR Imaging in Healthy Subjects and Patients with Osteoarthritis

2008· article· en· W1981995703 on OpenAlexaffabout
Isabel Rauscher, Robert Stahl, Jonathan Cheng, Xiaojuan Li, Markus Huber, Anthony Luke, Sharmila Majumdar, Thomas M. Link

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineWOMACCartilageMeniscusRadiologyPathologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate differences in T1(rho) (T1 relaxation time in the rotating frame) and T2 values in the meniscus at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in both patients with varying degrees of osteoarthritis (OA) and healthy control subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. T1(rho) and T2 measurements were performed at 3.0-T MR imaging in 60 subjects deemed to be healthy (n = 23; mean age, 34.1 years +/- 10.0 [standard deviation]; age range, 23-59 years), having mild OA (n = 27; mean age, 52.5 years +/- 10.9; age range, 32-69 years), or having severe OA (n = 10; mean age, 61.6 years +/- 11.6; age range, 50-86 years). Semiautomatic segmentation was performed to generate T1(rho) and T2 maps of the menisci. Clinical findings were assessed by using Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaires. Differences in T1(rho) and T2 values between the three subject groups were calculated by using two-tailed t tests (with P < .05 indicating significance), and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed. Correlations of meniscal T1(rho) and T2 values with age, cartilage-derived T1(rho) and T2 parameters, and WOMAC scores were calculated. RESULTS: Significant differences between the three subject groups were found: Mean T1(rho) values were 14.7 msec +/- 5.5, 16.1 msec +/- 6.6, and 19.3 msec +/- 7.6 for the healthy, mild OA, and severe OA groups, respectively. Mean T2 values were 11.4 msec +/- 3.9, 13.5 msec +/- 4.7, and 16.6 msec +/- 8.2 for the healthy, mild OA, and severe OA groups, respectively. Correlations of meniscal T1(rho) and T2 values with subject age (R(2) = 0.18, for correlation with T2 only), cartilage-derived parameters (R(2) = 0.14-0.29), and WOMAC scores (R(2) = 0.11-0.45) were significant. CONCLUSION: Meniscal T1(rho) and T2 values correlate with clinical findings of OA and can be used to differentiate healthy subjects from patients with mild or severe OA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations157
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207