Research & Innovation
Publications
Comparison between coronal FLASH and sagittal double echo steady state MRI in detecting longitudinal cartilage thickness change by fully automated segmentation - Data from the FNIH biomarker cohort
PMU Authors
Felix Eckstein, Wolfgang Wirth
All Authors
Felix Eckstein, Akshay S. Chaudhari, David J. Hunter, Wolfgang Wirth
Journal association
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open
Abstract
Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI-) based automated cartilage analysis demonstrated similar sensitivity to change and only slighty inferior differentiation between radiographic progressors and non-progressors compared with manual segmentation. However, this finding was based on DESS MRI from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), whereas the vast majority of multicenter clinical trials rely on T1-weighted gradient echo (e.g. FLASH). Here we directly compare fully automated analysis of coronal FLASH vs. sagittal DESS, and vs. manually segmented DESS, in a sample with both FLASH and DESS MRI acquisitions. Design: Convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithms were trained on 86 radiographically osteoarthritic knees with manual expert segmentation of the medial and lateral femorotibial cartilages (coronal FLASH and sagittal DESS). Post-processing involved automated registration of CNN-based subchondral bone segmentation to reference areas. The models were applied to baseline and two-year follow-up MRIs of radiographic progressor and non-progressor knees in the Foundation of the NIH Biomarker sample of the OAI. Results: Of the 322 FNIH knees with both FLASH and DESS; 157 were radiographic progressors. Sensitivity to medial femorotibial cartilage thickness change (standardized response mean) in the progressor subcohort was -0.81 for FLASH (automated analysis), - 0.74 for automatically, and - 0.72 for manually segmented DESS. Differentiation from non-progressors (Cohen's D) was - 0.82. -0.70, and - 0.87, respectively. Conclusions: Fully automated, AI-based cartilage segmentation with advanced post-processing reveals that coronal FLASH is at least as discriminative between radiographic progressor vs. non-progressor knees as sagittal DESS MRI. Yet, performance of fully automated segmentation is slightly inferior to manual analysis with expert quality control. Trial id: Clinicaltrials.gov identification: NCT00080171.
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence, CARTILAGE THICKNESS, Automated segmentation, MR imaging, Osteoarthritis progression