Cartilage T2 Assessment: Differentiation of Normal Hyaline Cartilage and Reparative Tissue after Arthroscopic Cartilage Repair in Equine Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively assess T2 mapping characteristics of normal articular cartilage and of cartilage at sites of arthroscopic repair, including comparison with histologic results and collagen organization assessed at polarized light microscopy (PLM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study protocol was compliant with the Canadian Council on Animal Care Guidelines and approved by the institutional animal care committee. Arthroscopic osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT) and microfracture arthroplasty (MFx) were performed in knees of 10 equine subjects (seven female, three male; age range, 3-5 years). A site of arthroscopically normal cartilage was documented in each joint as a control site. Joints were harvested at 12 (n = 5) and 24 (n = 5) weeks postoperatively and were imaged at 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) with a 10-echo sagittal fast spin-echo acquisition. T2 maps of each site (21 OAT harvest, 10 MFx, 12 OAT plug, and 10 control sites) were calculated with linear least-squares curve fitting. Cartilage T2 maps were qualitatively graded as "organized" (normal transition of low-to-high T2 signal from deep to superficial cartilage zones) or "disorganized." Quantitative mean T2 values were calculated for deep, middle, and superficial cartilage at each location. Results were compared with histologic and PLM assessments by using kappa analysis. RESULTS: T2 maps were qualitatively graded as organized at 20 of 53 sites and as disorganized at 33 sites. Perfect agreement was seen between organized T2 and histologic findings of hyaline cartilage and between disorganized T2 and histologic findings of fibrous reparative tissue (kappa = 1.0). Strong agreement was seen between organized T2 and normal PLM findings and between disorganized T2 and abnormal PLM findings (kappa = .92). Quantitative assessment of the deep, middle, and superficial cartilage, respectively, showed mean T2 values of 53.3, 58.6, and 54.9 msec at reparative fibrous tissue sites and 40.7, 53.6, and 61.6 msec at hyaline cartilage sites. A significant trend of increasing T2 values (from deep to superficial) was found in hyaline cartilage (P < .01). Fibrous tissue sites had no significant change with depth (P > .59). CONCLUSION: Qualitative and quantitative T2 mapping helped differentiate hyaline cartilage from reparative fibrocartilage after cartilage repair at 1.5-T MR imaging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".