Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Foundations of a Knee Joint Digital Twin from qMRI Biomarkers for Osteoarthritis and Knee Replacement

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A qMRI pipeline ties cartilage and meniscus shape to osteoarthritis and knee replacement.

desk verdict A useful open-source qMRI biomarker pipeline whose univariate results are plausible, but the headline multivariate p-values are post-selection artefacts and the 'digital twin' framing oversells the current evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15396 v1 pith:RQC2WLNA submitted 2025-01-26 q-bio.QM cs.CVcs.LGeess.IVstat.AP

Gabrielle Hoyer , Kenneth T Gao , Felix G Gassert , Johanna Luitjens , Fei Jiang , Sharmila Majumdar , Valentina Pedoia This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.CVcs.LGeess.IVstat.AP
keywords osteoarthritiskneereplacementquantitativeMRIimagingbiomarkersprincipalcomponentanalysiscohortmatchingcartilagethicknessmeniscusshape
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that a largely automatic pipeline—deep-learning segmentation of knee MRI, compression into 110 numerically interpretable principal-component modes of bone shape, cartilage thickness, cartilage T2, and meniscus shape, clinical cohort matching, and regularized regression—can identify quantitative-MRI biomarkers that are significantly associated with later osteoarthritis and knee replacement. In matched case-control analyses of a public longitudinal cohort of 4,796 participants, the authors find, for example, that one femoral cartilage-thickness mode is protective in both outcome analyses, while a medial-meniscus shape mode is associated with increased osteoarthritis incidence. Their broader claim is that this same feature space can serve as the foundation of a knee-joint digital twin: an interpretable, patient-specific model for tracking joint health and forecasting outcomes. That would matter because standard imaging detects structural damage late, and clinicians lack early prognostic tools to guide intervention.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PCA-derived qMRI feature space: for each tissue (femur, tibia, patella, medial and lateral meniscus) and each biomarker (bone shape, cartilage thickness, cartilage T2), the first ten principal components are kept, producing 110 modes. A principal-component mode is a fixed anatomical pattern of variation—for example, localized thickening in the trochlea—and each participant's score places their joint along that pattern. The supporting machinery is cohort matching by nearest neighbors in a 3D t-SNE embedding of clinical covariates, followed by elastic-net logistic regression with 1,000 bootstrap samples and stability selection to retain features that reproducibly contribute to outcomes.

What would settle it

Rerun the final OA-incidence and knee-replacement logistic regressions with race, ethnicity, weight, and BMI added as adjustment terms, and check whether the protective odds ratio for Cartilage Thickness Femur PC2 persists. If it attenuates toward 1.0 or reverses, the claim that this qMRI mode is a genuine dual-protective biomarker fails. A second check is a permutation or negative-control test: re-label case/control status randomly, rerun the whole matching-plus-selection pipeline, and count how many PC modes cross the significance threshold; if the same number appears under permuted labels, the findings are artifacts of the matching procedure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the 110-dimensional space of PCA modes built from bone and meniscus shape, cartilage thickness, and cartilage T2 relaxometry contains stable, interpretable signatures of both early osteoarthritis and progression to knee replacement. In the OA-incidence cohort, femoral and tibial cartilage-thickness modes and several T2 modes show significant differences from matched controls; in the knee-replacement cohort, bone-shape, cartilage-thickness, and T2 modes separate participants who later had surgery from those who did not. The most emphasized single result is Cartilage Thickness Femur PC2, which shows a protective association in both analyses and is proposed as a candidate metric for tracking femoral cartilage integrity. The authors present these biomarkers not as a finished predictive model but as validated building blocks for a digital twin.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the t-SNE nearest-neighbor matching makes the outcome and control groups comparable enough that the remaining demographic and clinical differences do not drive the biomarker associations. The paper itself reports residual differences in race, weight, and BMI after matching and asserts they are unlikely to affect results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the associations hold, Cartilage Thickness Femur PC2 becomes a candidate early-warning metric: low scores mark knees at elevated risk for both OA onset and later replacement.
  • The fixed 110-mode space can be reused across follow-up visits by projecting later segmentations onto the baseline PCA, enabling longitudinal tracking of joint health.
  • The visualization tool converts each PC mode into radiologist-readable anatomical descriptions, so the biomarker features are interpretable rather than black-box.
  • Because the pipeline is modular, adding biomechanical or clinical data would extend the digital twin without rederiving the baseline imaging feature space.
  • The matched-cohort and stability-selection design offers a reusable template for validating candidate imaging biomarkers before committing to a full predictive model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The analyses are cross-sectional in design even though the outcomes are longitudinal; the odds ratios should be read as associations, and a true digital twin would require showing that within-person changes in these PC modes track disease progression, which the paper does not yet do.
  • The residual post-matching imbalance in race, weight, and BMI—the paper reports p=0.020 for race and p=0.025/0.036 for weight/BMI—is the main threat to the biomarker associations; adjusting the final models for these residual covariates would show whether the protective cartilage signal is biological or partly a body-size confound.
  • Because t-SNE matching is performed with replacement, some control participants are reused; this makes the effective sample size smaller than the nominal counts and suggests standard errors may be underestimated. Matched-pair or cluster-robust inference would give more conservative confidence intervals.
  • The same pipeline may transfer to other joints or imaging protocols, but the PCA modes and segmentation models are trained on this cohort's MRI data, so portability would require recalibration rather than direct reapplication.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scalable foundation for a knee joint digital twin by combining automatic deep-learning segmentation of OAI knee MRI, PCA-based extraction of 110 imaging biomarkers (bone shape, cartilage thickness, cartilage T2, meniscus shape), t-SNE-based clinical cohort matching, cross-sectional Wilcoxon analyses, and elastic-net stability selection followed by a final logistic GLM. It reports specific PC modes significantly associated with OA incidence and knee replacement, such as Cartilage Thickness Femur PC2 showing a protective association in both OA (OR 0.960, p=2.05e-3) and KR (OR 0.948, p=3.88e-6) analyses, and Medial Meniscus PC10 with increased OA incidence odds (OR 1.026, p=3.28e-2). The authors frame these findings as candidate biomarkers for a digital twin and provide an interactive visualization tool and open-source code.

Significance. If the associations are reliable, the pipeline would be a valuable resource for the OA imaging community: segmentation models show high Dice scores (0.85+ soft tissue, 0.95+ bone), scan-rescan variability is small, and the data and code are openly available. The interpretability tool and the attempt to link qMRI features to clinically meaningful outcomes are commendable and aligned with the digital-twin vision. However, the central inferential claim is currently undercut by post-selection p-values from the same dataset and by residual confounding from matching with replacement. The significance of the paper as a source of validated biomarkers is therefore limited until these issues are addressed; the infrastructure contribution remains worthwhile.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods – Multivariate Regression Analyses; Results – Multivariate Regression Analysis] The final GLM p-values and odds ratios (e.g., Cartilage Thickness Femur PC2 OR=0.960, p=2.05e-3 for OA; OR=0.948, p=3.88e-6 for KR) are computed on the same matched cohort that was used for elastic-net stability selection, with features retained by an upper-quartile weighted-importance threshold and no adjustment for this selection. This is a post-selection inference problem: under the null, some of the 110 candidate PCs will pass the filter by chance, and the reported p-values are likely anti-conservative. The manuscript should either use a split-sample or cross-validated selection procedure, apply selection-adjusted inference (e.g., data splitting or post-selection confidence intervals), or explicitly reframe the regression results as exploratory without reporting unadjusted p-values as confirmatory evidence.
  2. [Methods – Cohort Matching; Results – Cohort Matching Analytical Integrity] Matching with replacement reuses control subjects (Methods, Cohort Matching), yet the subsequent Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and the final GLM treat all observations as independent, which overstates the effective sample size and precision. Furthermore, the paper itself reports residual post-matching differences for race (chi-square p=0.020), weight (p=0.025), and BMI (p=0.036), and dismisses them as 'unlikely to impact results' without a sensitivity analysis. The central claim that the PC-mode associations reflect biological effects rather than residual confounding is not established. Please provide sensitivity analyses such as adjusting for residual covariates in the GLM, restricting to a fully balanced subsample, or using cluster-robust or weighted estimators that account for matching with replacement.
  3. [Methods – Cross-Sectional Statistical Analyses; Figure 4 caption] There is an internal inconsistency in the description of the cross-sectional tests: the Methods state 'two-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests,' while the Figure 4 caption refers to 'Paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests,' and the Methods report degrees of freedom as the number of cases minus one, which is not a quantity used by Wilcoxon tests. Because matching was performed with replacement, it is unclear whether paired or unpaired tests were used and whether any pairing is valid. Please clarify the exact test procedure, the rationale for pairing (if any), and how the analysis accounts for the reuse of control subjects.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Discussion – Integrated Findings from Cross-Sectional Analysis] The Discussion states that the cross-sectional analyses identified 'seven and thirty-eight features, respectively, showing statistical significance,' but the Results section enumerates 7 significant features for OA Incidence and 11 for Knee Replacement; this count discrepancy should be reconciled.
  2. [Methods – Cross-Sectional Statistical Analyses] The Benjamini-Hochberg formula is written as P'(i) = min(m/i × P(i), P'(i+1)), which is not the standard BH procedure as stated; please provide the exact formula with proper ordering of unadjusted p-values.
  3. [Abstract and Results] The abstract describes the study as a 'cross-sectional cohort analysis,' but OA incidence and knee replacement are longitudinal outcomes; please clarify that imaging features are baseline measurements and outcomes are incident over follow-up.
  4. [Results – Cohort Matching Analytical Integrity] The phrase 'unlikely to impact results' for residual race/ethnicity and weight/BMI imbalances is not backed by any quantitative sensitivity check; even a simple covariate-adjusted analysis would strengthen this statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported biomarker associations are not equivalent to fitted inputs or self-citation by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain begins with published neural-network segmentations (with independent test-set Dice and scan-rescan errors reported in Methods), proceeds to unsupervised PCA of the baseline OAI imaging features, then to t-SNE clinical cohort matching, and finally to Wilcoxon and elastic-net GLM tests against outcome labels. None of these stages defines its output in terms of a parameter fitted to the same target, and no equation in the paper reduces a claimed odds ratio or p-value to the features used to construct it. The self-cited segmentation and meniscus-shape tools are load-bearing but are supported by reported held-out Dice coefficients (e.g., meniscus 0.874 ± 0.024, femoral cartilage 0.890 ± 0.023) and scan-rescan reliability, so they are not unverified placeholders under the rubric. The paper's own acknowledgment that race (chi-square p = 0.020) and weight/BMI remain imbalanced and are 'unlikely to impact results', plus the use of the same matched cohort for stability selection and final GLM inference, are genuine statistical-validity concerns (post-selection inference, matching with replacement), but they are overfitting/residual-confounding risks rather than circularity: the observed associations are not logically forced by the definition of the PCs or by the cited prior work. No specific reduction of a reported result to its own input was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or biological entity. Its invented content is a software platform and a statistical feature space, neither of which is an entity in the sense of a new particle or mechanism. The free parameters listed are all modeling choices that influence which features are found significant, and the axioms describe domain assumptions that are not independently validated within the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of PCA modes per tissue-biomarker = 10 (110 total)
    Chosen to balance variance capture and interpretability; central to the feature space but not justified by outcome-based optimization.
  • Elastic net coefficient threshold = 1e-5
    Absolute coefficient threshold used to deem features relevant in stability selection; arbitrary and affects selected features.
  • Upper quartile weighted-importance cutoff = upper quartile
    Features retained if weighted importance in top quartile; this choice shapes the final regression model.
  • t-SNE perplexity = sqrt(N)
    Perplexity parameter for t-SNE embedding used in cohort matching; chosen heuristically.
  • Significance level alpha = 0.05
    Used in BH-corrected Wilcoxon tests and final regression; standard but arbitrary.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption KL grade >= 2 is a valid definition of incident radiographic OA
    Used to define the OA Incidence outcome and control group; relies on radiographic KL grading as the gold standard.
  • ad hoc to paper PCA of landmarks computed on the baseline cohort provides a stable embedding for future timepoints
    The paper plans to project follow-up data onto the baseline PCA space; this assumes the baseline variance structure is stationary.
  • domain assumption Segmentation models generalize to the full OAI cohort
    Dice scores on a held-out subset are reported, but the analysis uses the same cohort for segmentation training and outcome association.
  • ad hoc to paper Unmeasured confounding is absent after t-SNE matching
    Matching only on observed covariates; no sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounders is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Wilcoxon rank-sum test is valid under matching with replacement
    Matched pairs are not independent, but unpaired tests are applied to PC features.
  • standard math Mono-exponential T2 model with offset is correct for cartilage
    Standard model used in quantitative MRI; assumed without alternative model comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Foundations of a Knee Joint Digital Twin from qMRI Biomarkers for Osteoarthritis and Knee Replacement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQC2WLNA

@misc{pith2026250115396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Foundations of a Knee Joint Digital Twin from qMRI Biomarkers for Osteoarthritis and Knee Replacement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQC2WLNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15396}
}
read the original abstract

This study forms the basis of a digital twin system of the knee joint, using advanced quantitative MRI (qMRI) and machine learning to advance precision health in osteoarthritis (OA) management and knee replacement (KR) prediction. We combined deep learning-based segmentation of knee joint structures with dimensionality reduction to create an embedded feature space of imaging biomarkers. Through cross-sectional cohort analysis and statistical modeling, we identified specific biomarkers, including variations in cartilage thickness and medial meniscus shape, that are significantly associated with OA incidence and KR outcomes. Integrating these findings into a comprehensive framework represents a considerable step toward personalized knee-joint digital twins, which could enhance therapeutic strategies and inform clinical decision-making in rheumatological care. This versatile and reliable infrastructure has the potential to be extended to broader clinical applications in precision health.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15396 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Interactive Tool for 3D Visualization and Expert Interpretation of PCA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Subject Cohort Selection and Data Processing for OA Incidence and Knee Replacement Analyses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deshpande, B. R. et al. Number of persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in the US: impact of race and ethnicity, age, sex, and obesity. Arthritis care & research 68, 1743–1750 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Jacobs, C. A. et al. Development of a mind body program for obese knee osteoarthritis patients with comorbid depression. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 21, 100720 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Cisternas, M. G. et al. Alternative methods for defining osteoarthritis and the impact on estimating prevalence in a US population‐based survey. Arthritis care & research 68, 574–580 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    & Jordan, J

    Zhang, Y . & Jordan, J. M. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Clinics in geriatric medicine 26, 355–369 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Ackerman, I. N. et al. The substantial personal burden experienced by younger people with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 23, 1276–1284 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    S., Rome, B

    Losina, E., Thornhill, T. S., Rome, B. N., Wright, J. & Katz, J. N. The dramatic increase in total knee replacement utilization rates in the United States cannot be fully explained by growth in population size and the obesity epidemic. JBJS 94, 201–207 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Xu, Y . & Wu, Q. Trends and disparities in osteoarthritis prevalence among US adults, 2005–2018. Scientific Reports 11, 21845 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Barbour, K. E. Vital signs: prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitation—United States, 2013–2015. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 66, (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Helmick, C. G. et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: Part I. Arthritis & Rheumatism 58, 15–25 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Hunter, D. J. & Bierma-Zeinstra, S. Osteoarthritis. The Lancet 393, 1745–1759 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    & Link, T

    Eckstein, F., Burstein, D. & Link, T. M. Quantitative MRI of cartilage and bone: degenerative changes in osteoarthritis. NMR in Biomedicine: An International Journal Devoted to the Development and Application of Magnetic Resonance In vivo 19, 822–854 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    & Richette, P

    Chevalier, X., Eymard, F. & Richette, P. Biologic agents in osteoarthritis: hopes and disappointments. Nat Rev Rheumatol 9, 400–410 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    & Conaghan, P

    Ghouri, A. & Conaghan, P. G. Update on novel pharmacological therapies for osteoarthritis. Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal 11; 10.1177/1759720X19864492 (2019)

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    RODRIGUEZ-MERCHAN, E. C. The current role of disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs. ABJS (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Bhosale, A. M. & Richardson, J. B. Articular cartilage: structure, injuries and review of management. British medical bulletin 87, 77–95 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Felson, D. T. et al. Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 2: treatment approaches. Annals of internal medicine 133, 726–737 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    & Majumdar, S

    Li, X. & Majumdar, S. Quantitative MRI of articular cartilage and its clinical applications. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 38, 991–1008 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Wirth, W. et al. Predictive and concurrent validity of cartilage thickness change as a marker of knee osteoarthritis progression: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis and cartilage 25, 2063–2071 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Eckstein, F. et al. Brief report: cartilage thickness change as an imaging biomarker of knee osteoarthritis progression: data from the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Osteoarthritis Biomarkers Consortium. Arthritis & rheumatology 67, 3184–3189 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Bredbenner, T. L. et al. Statistical shape modeling describes variation in tibia and femur surface geometry between Control and Incidence groups from the osteoarthritis initiative database. Journal of biomechanics 43, 1780–1786 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Neogi, T. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging–based three‐dimensional bone shape of the knee predicts onset of knee osteoarthritis: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Arthritis & Rheumatism 65, 2048–2058 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Hunter, D. et al. Longitudinal validation of periarticular bone area and 3D shape as biomarkers for knee OA progression? Data from the FNIH OA Biomarkers Consortium. Annals of the rheumatic diseases 75, 1607–1614 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Berthiaume, M. J. et al. Meniscal tear and extrusion are strongly associated with progression of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis as assessed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. Annals of the rheumatic diseases 64, 556–563 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    Dube, B. et al. Where does meniscal damage progress most rapidly? An analysis using three- dimensional shape models on data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 26, 62–71 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Gao, K. T. et al. Large‐Scale Analysis of Meniscus Morphology as Risk Factor for Knee Osteoarthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatology 75, 1958–1968 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Robinson, W. H. et al. Low-grade inflammation as a key mediator of the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Nature Reviews Rheumatology 12, 580–592 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    F., Collins, J

    Loeser, R. F., Collins, J. A. & Diekman, B. O. Ageing and the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Nature Reviews Rheumatology 12, 412–420 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Pedoia, V ., Lee, J., Norman, B., Link, T. M. & Majumdar, S. Diagnosing osteoarthritis from T2 maps using deep learning: an analysis of the entire Osteoarthritis Initiative baseline cohort. Osteoarthritis and cartilage 27, 1002–1010 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    J., Nevitt, M., Losina, E

    Hunter, D. J., Nevitt, M., Losina, E. & Kraus, V . Biomarkers for osteoarthritis: current position and steps towards further validation. Best practice & research Clinical rheumatology 28, 61–71 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins

    Committee on Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins et al. Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins. 26894 (National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    An AIAA and AIA Position Paper

    Digital Twin: Definition & Value. An AIAA and AIA Position Paper. (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/en- us/services/value-partnerships/asset-center/white-papers-articles/value-of-digital-twin-technology (2019)

    White Paper: The Value of Digital Twin Technology. https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/en- us/services/value-partnerships/asset-center/white-papers-articles/value-of-digital-twin-technology (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multi-center, longitudinal, prospective observational study of knee osteoarthritis, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and private industry partners

  26. [34]

    Roos, E. M. & Lohmander, L. S. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1, 64 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    & Hinton, G

    Maaten, L. & Hinton, G. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of machine learning research 9, (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Iriondo, C. et al. Towards understanding mechanistic subgroups of osteoarthritis: 8‐year cartilage thickness trajectory analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Research® 39, 1305–1317 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Baum, T. et al. Changes in knee cartilage T2 values over 24 months in subjects with and without risk factors for knee osteoarthritis and their association with focal knee lesions at baseline: Data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 35, 370–378 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Kretzschmar, M. et al. Spatial distribution and temporal progression of T2 relaxation time values in knee cartilage prior to the onset of cartilage lesions – data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 27, 737–745 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    & Katsuragi, J

    Kawahara, T., Sasho, T. & Katsuragi, J. Relationship between knee osteoarthritis and meniscal shape in observation of Japanese patients by using magnetic resonance imaging. J Orthop Surg 12, 97 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    S., Hudelmaier, M

    Eckstein, F., Wirth, W., Lohmander, L. S., Hudelmaier, M. I. & Frobell, R. B. Five‐year followup of knee joint cartilage thickness changes after acute rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arthritis & rheumatology 67, 152–161 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Barr, A. J. et al. The relationship between three-dimensional knee MRI bone shape and total knee replacement—a case control study: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Rheumatology 55, 1585– 1593 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    A., Vincent, G

    Bowes, M. A., Vincent, G. R., Wolstenholme, C. B. & Conaghan, P. G. A novel method for bone area measurement provides new insights into osteoarthritis and its progression. Annals of the rheumatic diseases 74, 519–525 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Sun, T. et al. The Digital Twin: A Potential Solution for the Personalized Diagnosis and Treatment of Musculoskeletal System Diseases. Bioengineering 10, 627 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Kellgren, J. H. & Lawrence, J. S. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16, 494–502 (1957)

    1957

  37. [45]

    Morales Martinez, A. et al. Learning osteoarthritis imaging biomarkers from bone surface spherical encoding. Magnetic resonance in medicine 84, 2190–2203 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    & Ahmadi, S.-A

    Milletari, F., Navab, N. & Ahmadi, S.-A. V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for V olumetric Medical Image Segmentation. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV .1606.04797 (2016)

    2016 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    & Brox, T

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P . & Brox, T. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015 (eds. Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W. M. & Frangi, A. F.) vol. 9351 234–241 (Springer Inter...

    2015

  40. [48]

    www.imorphics.com (2017)

    White Paper: Imorphics OA Knee MRI Measurements. www.imorphics.com (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV .1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Morales, A. G. et al. Uncovering associations between data-driven learned qMRI biomarkers and chronic pain. Scientific reports 11, 21989 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Lorensen, W. E. & Cline, H. E. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. in Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field 347–353 (1998)

    1998

  44. [52]

    Lombaert, H., Grady, L., Polimeni, J. R. & Cheriet, F. FOCUSR: feature oriented correspondence using spectral regularization–a method for precise surface matching. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 35, 2143–2160 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    Pedoia, V . et al. Three-dimensional MRI-based statistical shape model and application to a cohort of knees with acute ACL injury. Osteoarthritis and cartilage 23, 1695–1703 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Hirvasniemi, J. et al. The KNee OsteoArthritis Prediction (KNOAP2020) challenge: An image analysis challenge to predict incident symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis from MRI and X- ray images. Osteoarthritis and cartilage 31, 115–125 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research 12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Perktold, J. et al. jbrockmendel, grana6. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10378921

    doi

  49. [57]

    & Bühlmann, P

    Meinshausen, N. & Bühlmann, P. Stability selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology 72, 417–473 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.