Reliability of Tibiofemoral Contact Area and Centroid Location in an Upright, Open MRI (UO-MRI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: In biomechanical studies using conventional closed-bore MR, imaging cannot be performed during natural weightbearing 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 via the UO-MRI.Methods: Manual segmentation of cartilage regions in contact from participants with prior anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture was performed and centroids of those contact areas were automatically determined for the medial (MC) and lateral (LC) tibiofemoral compartments. To assess reliability, inter-rater, test-retest, and intra-rater reliability were determined by intra-class correlation (ICC3,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change with 95% confidence (SDC95). Accuracy was assessed by using a high-resolution, 7T MRI as a reference and determined by mean absolute error (MAE).Results: Contact area and centroid location reliability (inter-rater, test-retest, and intra-rater) for sagittal scans in the MC demonstrated ICC3,1 values from 0.95-0.99 and 0.98-0.99 respectively, and in the LC from 0.83-0.91 and 0.95-1.00 respectively. The smallest detectable change in contact area was 1.28% in the MC and 0.95% in the LC. Contact area and centroid location reliability for coronal scans in the MC demonstrated ICC3,1 values from 0.90-0.98 and 0.98-1.00 respectively, and in the LC from 0.76-0.94 and 0.93-1.00 respectively. The smallest detectable change in contact area was 0.65% in the MC and 1.41% in the LC. Contact area segmentation was accurate to within a MAE of 11.0 mm2.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 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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".