MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110496342 · doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03786-1

Reliability of tibiofemoral contact area and centroid location in upright, open MRI

2020· article· en· W3110496342 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Schmidt, David J. Stockton, Michael A. Hunt, Andrew Yung, Bassam A. Masri, David R. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Orthopaedic Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSagittal planeMagnetic resonance imagingCentroidReliability (semiconductor)Nuclear medicineLimits of agreementAnatomyRadiologyArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Imaging cannot be performed during natural weightbearing in biomechanical studies using conventional closed-bore MRI, which has necessitated simulating weightbearing load on the joint. Upright, open MRI (UO-MRI) allows for joint imaging during natural weightbearing and may have the potential to better characterize the biomechanical effect of tibiofemoral pathology involving soft tissues. However open MRI scanners have lower field strengths than closed-bore scanners, which limits the image quality that can be obtained. Thus, there is a need to establish the reliability of measurements in upright weightbearing postures obtained using UO-MRI. Methods Knees of five participants with prior anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were scanned standing in a 0.5 T upright open MRI scanner using a 3D DESS sequence. Manual segmentation of cartilage regions in contact was performed and centroids of these contact areas were automatically determined for the medial and lateral tibiofemoral compartments. Inter-rater, test-retest, and intra-rater reliability were determined and quantified using intra-class correlation (ICC 3,1 ), standard error of measurement (SEM), and smallest detectable change with 95% confidence (SDC 95 ). Accuracy was assessed by using a high-resolution 7 T MRI as a reference. Results Contact area and centroid location reliability (inter-rater, test-retest, and intra-rater) for sagittal scans in the medial compartment had ICC 3,1 values from 0.95–0.99 and 0.98–0.99 respectively. In the lateral compartment, contact area and centroid location reliability ICC 3,1 values ranged from 0.83–0.91 and 0.95–1.00 respectively. The smallest detectable change in contact area was 1.28% in the medial compartment and 0.95% in the lateral compartment. Contact area and centroid location reliability for coronal scans in the medial compartment had ICC 3,1 values from 0.90–0.98 and 0.98–1.00 respectively, and in the lateral compartment ICC 3,1 ranged from 0.76–0.94 and 0.93–1.00 respectively. The smallest detectable change in contact area was 0.65% in the medial compartment and 1.41% in the lateral compartment. Contact area was accurate to within a mean absolute error of 11.0 mm 2 . Conclusions Knee contact area and contact centroid location can be assessed in upright weightbearing MRI with good to excellent reliability. The lower field strength used in upright, weightbearing MRI does not compromise the reliability of tibiofemoral contact area and centroid location measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207