MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164069645 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2003.814539

Computer-aided method for quantification of cartilage thickness and volume changes using mri: validation study using a synthetic model

2003· article· en· W2164069645 on OpenAlexaff
C. Kauffmann, Pierre Gravel, B. Godbout, A. Gravel, G. Beaudoin, J. P. Raynauld, Johanne Martel‐Pelletier, J.-P. Pelletier, Jacques A. de Guise

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureResearch Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartilageMagnetic resonance imagingBiomedical engineeringOsteoarthritisTibiaKnee cartilageOffset (computer science)Materials scienceArticular cartilageComputer scienceAnatomyRadiologyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this study was to develop a computer-aided method for the quantification of three-dimensional (3-D) cartilage changes over time in knees with osteoarthritis (OA). We introduced a local coordinate system (LCS) for the femoral and tibial cartilage boundaries that provides a standardized representation of cartilage geometry, thickness, and volume. The LCS can be registered in different data sets from the same patient so that results can be directly compared. Cartilage boundaries are segmented from 3-D magnetic resonance (MR) slices with a semi-automated method and transformed into offset-maps, defined by the LCS. Volumes and thickness are computed from these offset-maps. Further anatomical labeling allows focal volumes to be evaluated in predefined subregions. The accuracy of the automated behavior of the method was assessed, without any human intervention, using realistic, synthetic 3-D MR images of a human knee. The error in thickness evaluation is lower than 0.12 mm for the tibia and femur. Cartilage volumes in anatomical subregions show a coefficient of variation ranging from 0.11% to 0.32%. This method improves noninvasive 3-D analysis of cartilage thickness and volume and is well suited for in vivo follow-up clinical studies of OA knees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations139
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207