Three-dimensional MRI Bone Models of the Glenohumeral Joint Using Deep Learning: Evaluation of Normal Anatomy and Glenoid Bone Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To use convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for fully automated MRI segmentation of the glenohumeral joint and evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) MRI models created with this method. Materials and Methods Shoulder MR images of 100 patients (average age, 44 years; range, 14–80 years; 60 men) were retrospectively collected from September 2013 to August 2018. CNNs were used to develop a fully automated segmentation model for proton density–weighted images. Shoulder MR images from an additional 50 patients (mean age, 33 years; range, 16–65 years; 35 men) were retrospectively collected from May 2014 to April 2019 to create 3D MRI glenohumeral models by transfer learning using Dixon-based sequences. Two musculoskeletal radiologists performed measurements on fully and semiautomated segmented 3D MRI models to assess glenohumeral anatomy, glenoid bone loss (GBL), and their impact on treatment selection. Performance of the CNNs was evaluated using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), sensitivity, precision, and surface-based distance measurements. Measurements were compared using matched-pairs Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results The two-dimensional CNN model for the humerus and glenoid achieved a DSC of 0.95 and 0.86, a precision of 95.5% and 87.5%, an average precision of 98.6% and 92.3%, and a sensitivity of 94.8% and 86.1%, respectively. The 3D CNN model, for the humerus and glenoid, achieved a DSC of 0.95 and 0.86, precision of 95.1% and 87.1%, an average precision of 98.7% and 91.9%, and a sensitivity of 94.9% and 85.6%, respectively. There was no difference between glenoid and humeral head width fully and semiautomated 3D model measurements (P value range, .097–.99). Conclusion CNNs could potentially be used in clinical practice to provide rapid and accurate 3D MRI glenohumeral bone models and GBL measurements. Supplemental material is available for this article. Keywords: Computer Applications-3D, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Joints, Long Bones, MR-Imaging, Neural Networks, Segmentation, Shoulder, Skeletal-Appendicular, Supervised learning, Transfer learning © RSNA, 2020
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".