4.5 Article

Predicting Early Symptomatic Osteoarthritis in the Human Knee Using Machine Learning Classification of Magnetic Resonance Images From the Osteoarthritis Initiative

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 2243-2250

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.23519

关键词

osteoarthritis; MRI; pattern recognition; classification; registration; segmentation

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the NIH
  2. National Institute on Aging
  3. NIH [KL2 TR000146]
  4. National Institutes of Health [N01-AR-2-2258, N01-AR-2-2259, N01-AR-2-2260, N01-AR-22261, N01-AR-2-2262]
  5. Department of Health and Human Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the ability of a machine learning algorithm to classify in vivo magnetic resonance images (MRI) of human articular cartilage for development of osteoarthritis (OA). Sixty-eight subjects were selected from the osteoarthritis initiative (OAI) control and incidence cohorts. Progression to clinical OA was defined by the development of symptoms as quantified by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) questionnaire 3 years after baseline evaluation. Multi-slice T-2-weighted knee images, obtained through the OAI, of these subjects were registered using a nonlinear image registration algorithm. T-2 maps of cartilage from the central weight bearing slices of the medial femoral condyle were derived from the registered images using the multiple available echo times and were classified for progression to symptomatic OA using the machine learning tool, weighted neighbor distance using compound hierarchy of algorithms representing morphology (WND-CHRM). WND-CHRM classified the isolated T-2 maps for the progression to symptomatic OA with 75% accuracy. Clinical significance: Machine learning algorithms applied to T-2 maps have the potential to provide important prognostic information for the development of OA. (C) 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据