Magnetic resonance imaging assessments for knee segmentation and their use in combination with machine/deep learning as predictors of early osteoarthritis diagnosis and prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and disabling disease that can develop over decades. This disease is heterogeneous and involves structural changes in the whole joint, encompassing multiple tissue types. Detecting OA before the onset of irreversible changes is crucial for early management, and this could be achieved by allowing knee tissue visualization and quantifying their changes over time. Although some imaging modalities are available for knee structure assessment, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is preferred. This narrative review looks at existing literature, first on MRI-developed approaches for evaluating knee articular tissues, and second on prediction using machine/deep-learning-based methodologies and MRI as input or outcome for early OA diagnosis and prognosis. A substantial number of MRI methodologies have been developed to assess several knee tissues in a semi-quantitative and quantitative fashion using manual, semi-automated and fully automated systems. This dynamic field has grown substantially since the advent of machine/deep learning. Another active area is predictive modelling using machine/deep-learning methodologies enabling robust early OA diagnosis/prognosis. Moreover, incorporating MRI markers as input/outcome in such predictive models is important for a more accurate OA structural diagnosis/prognosis. The main limitation of their usage is the ability to move them in rheumatology practice. In conclusion, MRI knee tissue determination and quantification provide early indicators for individuals at high risk of developing this disease or for patient prognosis. Such assessment of knee tissues, combined with the development of models/tools from machine/deep learning using, in addition to other parameters, MRI markers for early diagnosis/prognosis, will maximize opportunities for individualized risk assessment for use in clinical practice permitting precision medicine. Future efforts should be made to integrate such prediction models into open access, allowing early disease management to prevent or delay the OA outcome.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".