ShapeMed-Knee: A Dataset and Neural Shape Model Benchmark for Modeling 3D Femurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Analyzing anatomic shapes of tissues and organs is pivotal for accurate disease diagnostics and clinical decision-making. One prominent disease that depends on anatomic shape analysis is osteoarthritis, which affects 30 million Americans. To advance osteoarthritis diagnostics and prognostics, we introduce ShapeMed-Knee , a 3D shape dataset with 9,376 high-resolution, medicalimaging-based 3D shapes of both femur bone and cartilage. Besides data, ShapeMed-Knee includes two benchmarks for assessing reconstruction accuracy and five clinical prediction tasks that assess the utility of learned shape representations. Leveraging ShapeMed-Knee, we develop and evaluate a novel hybrid explicit-implicit neural shape model which achieves up to 40% better reconstruction accuracy than a statistical shape model and two implicit neural shape models. Our hybrid models achieve state-of-the-art performance for preserving cartilage biomarkers (root mean squared error ≤ 0.05 vs. ≤ 0.07, 0.10, and 0.14). Our models are also the first to successfully predict localized structural features of osteoarthritis, outperforming shape models and convolutional neural networks applied to raw magnetic resonance images and segmentations (e.g., osteophyte size and localization 63% accuracy vs. 49-61%). The ShapeMed-Knee dataset provides medical evaluations to reconstruct multiple anatomic surfaces and embed meaningful disease-specific information. ShapeMed-Knee reduces barriers to applying 3D modeling in medicine, and our benchmarks highlight that advancements in 3D modeling can enhance the diagnosis and risk stratification for complex diseases. The dataset, code, and benchmarks are freely accessible.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".