Brief Report: Cartilage Thickness Change as an Imaging Biomarker of Knee Osteoarthritis Progression: Data From the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Osteoarthritis Biomarkers Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of cartilage thickness change over 24 months, as determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression at 24-48 months. METHODS: This nested case-control study included 600 knees with a baseline Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) grade of 1-3 from 600 Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) participants. Case knees (n = 194) had both medial tibiofemoral radiographic joint space loss (≥0.7 mm) and a persistent increase in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score (≥9 on a 0-100 scale) 24-48 months from baseline. Control knees (n = 406) included 200 with neither radiographic nor pain progression, 103 with radiographic progression only, and 103 with pain progression only. Medial and lateral femorotibial cartilage was segmented from sagittal 3T MRIs at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of change in cartilage thickness, with a focus on the central medial femorotibial compartment, and OA progression. RESULTS: Central medial femorotibial compartment thickness loss was significantly associated with case status, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.9 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.6-2.3) (P < 0.0001). Association with case status reached P < 0.05 for both the central femur (OR 1.8 [95% CI 1.5-2.2]) and the central tibia (OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.3-1.9]). Lateral femorotibial compartment cartilage thickness loss, in contrast, was not significantly associated with case status. A reduction in central medial femorotibial compartment cartilage thickness was strongly associated with radiographic progression (OR 4.0 [95% CI 2.9-5.3]; P < 0.0001) and only weakly associated with pain progression (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1-1.6]; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that loss of medial femorotibial cartilage thickness over 24 months is associated with the combination of radiographic and pain progression in the knee, with a stronger association for radiographic progression.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".