Severity and distribution of cartilage damage and bone marrow edema in the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints in knee osteoarthritis determined by MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to analyze the distribution and severity of cartilage damage (CD) and bone marrow edema (BME) of the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints (PFJ and TFJ, respectively) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), and to determine whether a correlation exists between BME and CD in knee OA, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Forty-five patients diagnosed with knee OA (KOA group) and 20 healthy individuals (control group) underwent sagittal multi-echo recalled gradient echo sequence scans, in addition to four conventional MR sequence scans. Knee joints were divided into 15 subregions by the whole-organ MRI scoring method. MRIs of each subregion were analyzed for the presence of CD, CD score and BME score. The knee joint activity functional score was determined using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) in the KOA group. Statistical analyses were used to compare the CD incidence; CD score and BME score between the PFJ and TFJ. Whether a correlation existed among body mass index, BME score, WOMAC pain score and CD score was also examined. Among the 675 subregions analyzed in the KOA group, 131 exhibited CD (CD score, 1-6). These 131 subregions were primarily in the PFJ (80/131, 61.07%), with the remainder in the TFJ (51/131, 38.93%). Thirty-three subregions had a CD score of 1, including 24 PFJ subregions (72.73%) and 9 TFJ subregions (27.27%). Among the 103 subregions with BME, the PFJ accounted for 60 (58.25%) and the TFJ for 43 (41.75%). A significant positive correlation was found between the BME and CD scores. In conclusion, CD and BME occurred earlier and more often in the PFJ compared to the TFJ in knee OA, and BME is an indirect sign of CD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".