English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objective  To study the longitudinal performance of fully automated cartilage segmentation in knees with radiographic osteoarthritis (OA), we evaluated the sensitivity to change in progressor knees from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health OA Biomarkers Consortium between the automated and previously reported manual expert segmentation, and we determined whether differences in progression rates between predefined cohorts can be detected by the fully automated approach.    Methods  The OA Initiative Biomarker Consortium was a nested case–control study. Progressor knees had both medial tibiofemoral radiographic joint space width loss (≥0.7 mm) and a persistent increase in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain scores (≥9 on a 0–100 scale) after 2 years from baseline (n = 194), whereas non‐progressor knees did not have either of both (n = 200). Deep‐learning automated algorithms trained on radiographic OA knees or knees of a healthy reference cohort (HRC) were used to automatically segment medial femorotibial compartment (MFTC) and lateral femorotibial cartilage on baseline and 2‐year follow‐up magnetic resonance imaging. Findings were compared with previously published manual expert segmentation.    Results  The mean ± SD MFTC cartilage loss in the progressor cohort was –181 ± 245 μm by manual segmentation (standardized response mean [SRM] –0.74), –144 ± 200 μm by the radiographic OA–based model (SRM –0.72), and –69 ± 231 μm by HRC‐based model segmentation (SRM –0.30). Cohen's  d  for rates of progression between progressor versus the non‐progressor cohort was –0.84 ( P  < 0.001) for manual, –0.68 ( P  < 0.001) for the automated radiographic OA model, and –0.14 ( P  = 0.18) for automated HRC model segmentation.    Conclusion  A fully automated deep‐learning segmentation approach not only displays similar sensitivity to change of longitudinal cartilage thickness loss in knee OA as did manual expert segmentation but also effectively differentiates longitudinal rates of loss of cartilage thickness between cohorts with different progression profiles.

arthritis care and research

Detection of Differences in Longitudinal Cartilage Thickness Loss Using a Deep‐Learning Automated Segmentation Algorithm: Data From the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Study of the Osteoarthritis Initiative