Article

MRI protocols for whole-organ assessment of the knee in osteoarthritis

Synarc Inc., San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (Impact Factor: 4.66). 02/2006; 14 Suppl A:A95-111. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2006.02.029
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT One of the critical challenges in developing structure-modifying therapies for arthritis, especially osteoarthritis (OA), is measuring changes in progression of joint destruction. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers considerable promise in this regard. Not only can MRI quantify articular cartilage volume and morphology with high precision and accuracy, but it can also examine several other important articular components, and thus offer a unique opportunity to evaluate the knee and other joints as whole organs. On December 5 and 6, 2002, OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials) and OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International), with support from various pharmaceutical companies listed at the beginning of this supplement, held a Workshop for Consensus on Osteoarthritis Imaging in Bethesda, MD. The aim of the Workshop was to provide a state-of-the-art review of imaging outcome measures for OA of the knee to help guide scientists and pharmaceutical companies who want to use MRI in multi-site studies of OA. Applications of MRI were initially reviewed by a multidisciplinary, international panel of expert scientists and physicians from academia, the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. The findings of the panel were then presented to a wider group of participants for open discussion. The following report summarizes the results of these discussions with respect to MRI acquisition techniques for whole-organ assessment of the knee in OA. The discussion reviews the selection and qualification of imaging sites for clinical trials, designing imaging protocols for whole-organ assessment of OA, and key considerations in image quality (IQ) control and data management.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Bernard Dardzinski, Oct 08, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
93 Views
  • Source
    • "The standard sequences in literature for these scanners have high in-plane resolution but usually have a larger interslice distance, and many assessment methods developed for such sequences are on a slice-by-slice basis. For a thorough review of MRI scan protocols for knee OA assessment, see [5]. A recent study shows that low-field dedicated extremity MRI can provide similar information on bone erosions and synovitis as expensive high-field MRI units [6]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We present a fully automatic method for articular cartilage segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) which we use as the foundation of a quantitative cartilage assessment. We evaluate our method by comparisons to manual segmentations by a radiologist and by examining the interscan reproducibility of the volume and area estimates. Training and evaluation of the method is performed on a data set consisting of 139 scans of knees with a status ranging from healthy to severely osteoarthritic. This is, to our knowledge, the only fully automatic cartilage segmentation method that has good agreement with manual segmentations, an interscan reproducibility as good as that of a human expert, and enables the separation between healthy and osteoarthritic populations. While high-field scanners offer high-quality imaging from which the articular cartilage have been evaluated extensively using manual and automated image analysis techniques, low-field scanners on the other hand produce lower quality images but to a fraction of the cost of their high-field counterpart. For low-field MRI, there is no well-established accuracy validation for quantitative cartilage estimates, but we show that differences between healthy and osteoarthritic populations are statistically significant using our cartilage volume and surface area estimates, which suggests that low-field MRI analysis can become a useful, affordable tool in clinical studies
    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 02/2007; 26(1-26):106 - 115. DOI:10.1109/TMI.2006.886808 · 3.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper deals with logics of programs. The objective is to formalize a notion of program description, and to give both plausible (semantic) and effective (syntactic) criteria for the notion of truth of a description. A novel feature of this treatment is the development of the mathematics underlying Floyd-Hoare axiom systems independently of such systems. Other directions that such research might take are also considered. This paper grew out of, and is intended to be usable as, class notes [27] for an introductory semantics course. The three sections of the paper are: 1. A framework for the logic of programs. Programs and their partial correctness theories are treated as binary relations on states and formulae respectively. Truth-values are assigned to partial correctness assertions in a plausible (Tarskian) but not directly usable way. 2. Particular Programs. Effective criteria for truth are established for some programs using the Tarskian criteria as a benchmark. This leads directly to a sound, complete, effective axiom system for the theories of these programs. The difficulties involved in finding such effective criteria for other programs are explored. The reader's attention is drawn to Theorems 4, 16, 18 and 22-24, as worthy of mention even out of the context in which they now appear. 3. Variations and extensions of the framework. Alternatives to binary relations for both programs and theories are speculated on, and their possible roles in semantics are considered. We discuss a hierarchy of varieties of programs and the importance of this hierarchy to the issues of definability and describability. Modal logic is considered as a first-order alternative to Floyd-Hoare logic. We give an appropriate axiom system which is complete for loop-free programs and also puts conventional predicate calculus in a different light by lumping quantifiers with non-logical assignments rather than treating them as logical concepts. Proofs of all theorems are relegated to an appe- ndix.
    Foundations of Computer Science, 1976., 17th Annual Symposium on; 11/1976
Show more