TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of an automated laminar cartilage T2 relaxation time analysis method in an early osteoarthritis model
AU - Wirth, Wolfgang
AU - Maschek, Susanne
AU - Wisser, Anna
AU - Eder, Jana
AU - Baumgartner, Christian F
AU - Chaudhari, Akshay
AU - Berenbaum, Francis
AU - Eckstein, Felix
AU - OA-BIO Consortium
N1 - Wirth, Eckstein, Wisser: Research Program for Musculoskeletal Imaging, Institute of Imaging & Functional Musculoskeletal Research, Center of Anatomy & Cell Biology, Paracelsus Medical University, Strubergasse 21, 5020, Salzburg, Austria
Ludwig Boltzmann Inst. for Arthritis and Rehabilitation (LBIAR), Paracelsus Medical University, Strubergasse 21, 5020, Salzburg, Austria
PY - 2024/9/4
Y1 - 2024/9/4
N2 - OBJECTIVE: A fully automated laminar cartilage composition (MRI-based T2) analysis method was technically and clinically validated by comparing radiographically normal knees with (CL-JSN) and without contra-lateral joint space narrowing or other signs of radiographic osteoarthritis (OA, CL-noROA).MATERIALS AND METHODS: 2D U-Nets were trained from manually segmented femorotibial cartilages (n = 72) from all 7 echoes (All
E), or from the 1st echo only (1
st
E) of multi-echo-spin-echo (MESE) MRIs acquired by the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Because of its greater accuracy, only the All
E U-Net was then applied to knees from the OAI healthy reference cohort (n = 10), CL-JSN (n = 39), and (1:1) matched CL-noROA knees (n = 39) that all had manual expert segmentation, and to 982 non-matched CL-noROA knees without expert segmentation.
RESULTS: The agreement (Dice similarity coefficient) between automated vs. manual expert cartilage segmentation was between 0.82 ± 0.05/0.79 ± 0.06 (All
E/1
st
E) and 0.88 ± 0.03/0.88 ± 0.03 (All
E/1
st
E) across femorotibial cartilage plates. The deviation between automated vs. manually derived laminar T2 reached up to - 2.2 ± 2.6 ms/ + 4.1 ± 10.2 ms (All
E/1
st
E). The All
E U-Net showed a similar sensitivity to cross-sectional laminar T2 differences between CL-JSN and CL-noROA knees in the matched (Cohen's D ≤ 0.54) and the non-matched (D ≤ 0.54) comparison as the matched manual analyses (D ≤ 0.48). Longitudinally, the All
E U-Net also showed a similar sensitivity to CL-JSN vs. CS-noROA differences in the matched (D ≤ 0.51) and the non-matched (D ≤ 0.43) comparison as matched manual analyses (D ≤ 0.41).
CONCLUSION: The fully automated T2 analysis showed a high agreement, acceptable accuracy, and similar sensitivity to cross-sectional and longitudinal laminar T2 differences in an early OA model, compared with manual expert analysis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identification: NCT00080171.
AB - OBJECTIVE: A fully automated laminar cartilage composition (MRI-based T2) analysis method was technically and clinically validated by comparing radiographically normal knees with (CL-JSN) and without contra-lateral joint space narrowing or other signs of radiographic osteoarthritis (OA, CL-noROA).MATERIALS AND METHODS: 2D U-Nets were trained from manually segmented femorotibial cartilages (n = 72) from all 7 echoes (All
E), or from the 1st echo only (1
st
E) of multi-echo-spin-echo (MESE) MRIs acquired by the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Because of its greater accuracy, only the All
E U-Net was then applied to knees from the OAI healthy reference cohort (n = 10), CL-JSN (n = 39), and (1:1) matched CL-noROA knees (n = 39) that all had manual expert segmentation, and to 982 non-matched CL-noROA knees without expert segmentation.
RESULTS: The agreement (Dice similarity coefficient) between automated vs. manual expert cartilage segmentation was between 0.82 ± 0.05/0.79 ± 0.06 (All
E/1
st
E) and 0.88 ± 0.03/0.88 ± 0.03 (All
E/1
st
E) across femorotibial cartilage plates. The deviation between automated vs. manually derived laminar T2 reached up to - 2.2 ± 2.6 ms/ + 4.1 ± 10.2 ms (All
E/1
st
E). The All
E U-Net showed a similar sensitivity to cross-sectional laminar T2 differences between CL-JSN and CL-noROA knees in the matched (Cohen's D ≤ 0.54) and the non-matched (D ≤ 0.54) comparison as the matched manual analyses (D ≤ 0.48). Longitudinally, the All
E U-Net also showed a similar sensitivity to CL-JSN vs. CS-noROA differences in the matched (D ≤ 0.51) and the non-matched (D ≤ 0.43) comparison as matched manual analyses (D ≤ 0.41).
CONCLUSION: The fully automated T2 analysis showed a high agreement, acceptable accuracy, and similar sensitivity to cross-sectional and longitudinal laminar T2 differences in an early OA model, compared with manual expert analysis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identification: NCT00080171.
U2 - 10.1007/s00256-024-04786-1
DO - 10.1007/s00256-024-04786-1
M3 - Original Article
C2 - 39230576
SN - 0364-2348
JO - SKELETAL RADIOLOGY
JF - SKELETAL RADIOLOGY
ER -