Validation of a machine learning technique for segmentation and pose estimation in single plane fluoroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinematics of total knee replacements (TKR) play an important role in assessing the success of a procedure and would be a valuable addition to clinical practice; however, measuring TKR kinematics is time consuming and labour intensive. Recently, an automatic single-plane fluoroscopic method utilizing machine learning has been developed to facilitate a quick and simple process for measuring TKR kinematics. This study aimed to validate the new automatic single-plane technique using biplanar radiostereometric analysis (RSA) as the gold standard. Twenty-four knees were imaged at various angles of flexion in a dedicated RSA lab and 113 image pairs were obtained. Only the lateral RSA images were used for the automatic single-plane technique to simulate single-plane fluoroscopy. Two networks helped automate the kinematics measurement process, one segmented implant components and the other generated an initial pose estimate for the optimization algorithm. Kinematics obtained via the automatic single plane and manual biplane techniques were compared using root-mean-square error and Bland-Altman plots. Two observers measured the kinematics using the automated technique and results were compared with assess reproducibility. Root-mean-square errors were 0.8 mm for anterior-posterior translation, 0.5 mm for superior-inferior translation, 2.6 mm for medial-lateral translation, 1.0° for flexion-extension, 1.2° for abduction-adduction, and 1.7° for internal-external rotation. Reproducibility, reported as root-mean-square errors between operator measurements, was submillimeter for in-plane translations and below 2° for all rotations. Clinical Significance: The advantages of the automated single plane technique should aid in the kinematic measurement process and help researchers and clinicians perform TKR kinematic analyses.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".