Concurrent validity and reliability of a semi-automated approach to measuring the magnetic resonance imaging morphology of the knee joint in active youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis is attributed to alterations in joint morphology, alignment, and biomechanics triggered by injury. While magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-based measures of joint morphology and alignment are relevant to understanding osteoarthritis risk, time consuming manual data extraction and measurement limit the number of outcomes that can be considered and deter widespread use. This paper describes the development and evaluation of a semi-automated software for measuring tibiofemoral and patellofemoral joint architecture using MR images from youth with and without a previous sport-related knee injury. After prompting users to identify and select key anatomical landmarks, the software can calculate 37 (14 tibiofemoral, 23 patellofemoral) relevant geometric features (morphology and alignment) based on established methods. To assess validity and reliability, 11 common geometric features were calculated from the knee MR images (proton density and proton density fat saturation sequences; 1.5 T) of 76 individuals with a 3–10-year history of youth sport-related knee injury and 76 uninjured controls. Spearman’s or Pearson’s correlation coefficients (95% CI) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the concurrent validity of the semi-automated software (novice rater) versus expert manual measurements, while intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC 2,1 ; 95%CI), standard error of measurement (95%CI), 95% minimal detectable change, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the inter-rater reliability of the semi-automated software (novice vs resident radiologist rater). Correlation coefficients ranged between 0.89 (0.84, 0.92; Lateral Trochlear Inclination) and 0.97 (0.96, 0.98; Patellar Tilt Angle). ICC estimates ranged between 0.79 (0.63, 0.88; Lateral Patellar Tilt Angle) and 0.98 (0.95, 0.99; Bisect Offset). Bland-Altman plots did not reveal systematic bias. These measurement properties estimates are equal, if not better than previously reported methods suggesting that this novel semi-automated software is an accurate, reliable, and efficient alternative method for measuring large numbers of geometric features of the tibiofemoral and patellofemoral joints from MR studies.
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 | 0.023 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".