Texture analysis of cartilage T2 maps: individuals with risk factors for OA have higher and more heterogeneous knee cartilage MR T2 compared to normal controls - data from the osteoarthritis initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The goals of this study were (i) to compare the prevalence of focal knee abnormalities, the mean cartilage T2 relaxation time, and the spatial distribution of cartilage magnetic resonance (MR) T2 relaxation times between subjects with and without risk factors for Osteoarthritis (OA), (ii) to determine the relationship between MR cartilage T2 parameters, age and cartilage morphology as determined with whole-organ magnetic resonance imaging scores (WORMS) and (iii) to assess the reproducibility of WORMS scoring and T2 relaxation time measurements including the mean and grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) texture parameters. METHODS: Subjects with risk factors for OA (n = 92) and healthy controls (n = 53) were randomly selected from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) incidence and control cohorts, respectively. The specific inclusion criteria for this study were (1) age range 45-55 years, (2) body mass index (BMI) of 19-27 kg/m2, (3) Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) pain score of zero and (4) Kellgren Lawrence (KL) score of zero at baseline. 3.0 Tesla MR images of the right knee were analyzed using morphological gradings of cartilage, bone marrow and menisci (WORMS) as well as compartment specific cartilage T2 mean and heterogeneity. Regression models adjusted for age, gender, and BMI were used to determine the difference in cartilage parameters between groups. RESULTS: While there was no significant difference in the prevalence of knee abnormalities (cartilage lesions, bone marrow lesions, meniscus lesions) between controls and subjects at risk for OA, T2 parameters (mean T2, GLCM contrast, and GLCM variance) were significantly elevated in those at risk for OA. Additionally, a positive significant association between cartilage WORMS score and cartilage T2 parameters was evident. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study demonstrated that subjects at risk for OA have both higher and more heterogeneous cartilage T2 values than controls, and that T2 parameters are associated with morphologic degeneration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".