Initial results on development and application of statistical atlas of femoral cartilage in osteoarthritis to determine sex differences in structure: Data from the osteoarthritis initiative

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 372-383

  Tameem, Hussain Z ^a   Ardekani, Siamak ^b   Seeger, Leanne ^c   Thompson, Paul ^d   Sinha, Usha S ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

atlas; cartilage; morphometry; sex based differences

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BONE DEFORMATION; BONE RADIOGRAPHY; CARTILAGE; CAUCASIAN; DATA BASE; FEMALE; FEMUR; FEMUR CONDYLE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PATELLOFEMORAL JOINT; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; TENSOR BASED MORPHOMETRY; THICKNESS;

AGED; CARTILAGE; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; FEMUR; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; RISK; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 79960573469     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22643     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Raynauld JP, Martel-Pelletier J, Abram F, et al. Analysis of the precision and sensitivity to change of different approaches to assess cartilage loss by quantitative MRI in a longitudinal multicentre clinical trial in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2008; 10: R129.
2. Eckstein F, Burstein D, Link TM,. Quantitative MRI of cartilage and bone: degenerative changes in osteoarthritis. NMR Biomed 2006; 19: 822-854. (Pubitemid 44811544)
3. Eckstein F, Cicuttini F, Raynauld JP, Waterton JC, Peterfy C,. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of articular cartilage in knee osteoarthritis (OA): morphological assessment. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006; 14: A46-A75.
4. Pelletier JP, Raynauld JP, Berthiaume MJ, et al. Risk factors associated with the loss of cartilage volume on weight-bearing areas in knee osteoarthritis patients assessed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: a longitudinal study. Arthritis Res Ther 2007; 9: R74.
5. Roemer FW, Eckstein F, Guermazi A,. Magnetic resonance imaging-based semi-quantitative and quantitative assessment in osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2009; 35: 521-555.
6. Wirth W, Eckstein F,. A technique for regional analysis of femorotibial cartilage thickness based on quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008; 27: 737-744. (Pubitemid 351760846)
7. Frobell RB, Nevitt MC, Hudelmaier M, et al. Femorotibial subchondral bone area and regional cartilage thickness: A cross-sectional description in healthy reference cases and various radiographic stages of osteoarthritis in 1,003 knees from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Arthritis Care Res 2010; 62: 1612-1623.
8. Eckstein F, Wirth W, Hunter DJ, et al., OAI Investigators. Magnitude and regional distribution of cartilage loss associated with grades of joint space narrowing in radiographic osteoarthritis-data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18: 760-768.
9. Wirth W, Benichou O, Kwoh CK, et al., OAI Investigators. Spatial patterns of cartilage loss in the medial femoral condyle in osteoarthritic knees: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Magn Reson Med 2010; 63: 574-81.
10. Chung MK, Worsley KJ, Paus T, et al. A unified statistical approach to deformation-based morphometry. Neuroimage 2001; 14: 595-606. (Pubitemid 32801707)
11. Leow AD, Yanovsky I, Chiang MC, et al. Statistical properties of Jacobian maps and the realization of unbiased large-deformation nonlinear image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2007; 26: 822-832. (Pubitemid 46842917)
12. Woods RP, Mazziotta JC, Cherry SR,. MRI-PET registration with automated algorithm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993; 17: 536-546. (Pubitemid 23206731)
13. Stammberger T, Hohe J, Englmeier KH, Reiser M, Eckstein F,. Elastic registration of 3D cartilage surfaces from MR image data for detecting local changes in cartilage thickness. Magn Reson Med 2000; 44: 592-601.
14. Shen D, Davatzikos C,. Very high-resolution morphometry using mass-preserving deformations and HAMMER elastic registration. Neuroimage 2003; 18: 28-41. (Pubitemid 36062745)
15. Hua X, Lee S, Hibar DP, et al. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Mapping Alzheimer's disease progression in 1309 MRI scans: power estimates for different inter-scan intervals. Neuroimage 2010: 51: 63-75.
16. Hua X, Lee S, Yanovsky I, et al. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Optimizing power to track brain degeneration in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment with tensor-based morphometry: an ADNI study of 515 subjects. Neuroimage 2009; 48: 668-681.
17. Rohlfing T, Sullivan EV, Pfefferbaum A,. Deformation-based brain morphometry to track the course of alcoholism: differences between intra-subject and inter-subject analysis. Psychiatry Res 2006; 146: 157-170.
18. Otterness IG, Eckstein F,. Women have thinner cartilage and smaller joint surfaces than men after adjustment for body height and weight. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15: 666-672. (Pubitemid 46760617)
19. Ding C, Cicuttini F, Scott F, Glisson M, Jones G,. Sex differences in knee cartilage volume in adults: role of body and bone size, age and physical activity. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003; 42: 1317-1323. (Pubitemid 37407023)
20. Faber SC, Eckstein F, Lukasz S, et al. Gender differences in knee joint cartilage thickness, volume and articular surface areas: assessment with quantitative three-dimensional MR imaging. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30: 144-150. (Pubitemid 32288158)
21. Eckstein F, Winzheimer M, Hohe J, Englmeier KH, Reiser M,. Interindividual variability and correlation among morphological parameters of knee joint cartilage plates: analysis with three-dimensional MR imaging. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2001; 9: 101-111. (Pubitemid 32229259)
22. Cohen ZA, Mow VC, Henry JH, Levine WN, Ateshian GA,. Templates of the cartilage layers of the patellofemoral joint and their uses in the assessment of osteoarthritic cartilage damage. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2003; 11: 569-579. (Pubitemid 36926532)
23. Carballido-Gamio J, Li X, Link TM, Majumdar S,. Localized inter-subject comparison of knee cartilage thickness, T2 and T1ρ: generating an atlas of the knee. In: Proc 15th Annual Meeting ISMRM, Berlin; 2007. p 2661.
24. Bellemans J, Carpentier K, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J, Victor J,. The John Insall Award: both morphotype and gender influence the shape of the knee in patients undergoing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 29-36.
25. Eckstein F, Hudelmaier M, Wirth W, et al. Double echo steady state magnetic resonance imaging of knee articular cartilage at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 433-441.
26. Hunter DJ, Le Graverand MH, Eckstein F,. Radiologic markers of osteoarthritis progression. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2009; 21: 110-117.
27. Jenkinson M, Smith SM,. A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal 2001; 5: 143-156. (Pubitemid 35282800)
28. Thirion JP,. Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell's demons. Med Image Anal 1998; 2: 243-260.
29. Ardekani S, Sinha U,. Statistical representation of mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy brain maps of normal subjects. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24: 1243-1251. (Pubitemid 44871867)
30. Kochunov P, Lancaster J, Thompson PM, Woods RP, Hardies J, Fox PT,. Regional spatial normalization: towards an optimal target. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001; 25: 805-816. (Pubitemid 32861709)
31. Kochunov PK, Lancaster JL, Hardies J, et al. Mapping structural differences of the corpus callosum in individuals with 18q deletions using targetless regional spatial normalization. Hum Brain Mapp 2005; 24: 325-331. (Pubitemid 40471289)
32. Cootes T, Taylor C, Cooper D, Graham J,. Active shape models-their training and application. Comput Vis Image Understand 1995; 61: 38-59.
33. Ashburner J,. Computational anatomy with the SPM software. Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 27: 1163-1174.
34. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y,. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 1995; 57: 289-300.
35. Rohlfing T,. Transformation model and constraints cause bias in statistics on deformation fields. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv MICCAI 2006; 4190: 207-214. (Pubitemid 44609108)
36. Shepstone L, Rogers J, Kirwan JR, Silverman BW,. Shape of the intercondylar notch of the human femur: a comparison of osteoarthritic and non-osteoarthritic bones from a skeletal sample. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 968-973. (Pubitemid 32885673)
37. Mahfouz MR, Merkl BC, Fatah EE, Booth R Jr, Argenson JN,. Automatic methods for characterization of sexual dimorphism of adult femora: distal femur. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2007; 10: 447-456.
38. Duchesne S, Pruessner J, Collins DL,. Appearance-based segmentation of medial temporal lobe structures. Neuroimage 2002; 17: 515-531. (Pubitemid 35316992)
39. Thompson PM, Narr KL, Blanton RE, Toga AW,. Mapping structural alterations of the corpus callosum during brain development and degeneration. In:, Zaidel E, Iacoboni M, eds. The parallel brain: the cognitive neuroscience of the corpus callosum. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002. p 93-134.
40. Toro R, Perron M, Pike B, et al. Brain size and folding of the human cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 2008; 18: 2352-2357.
41. Hellio Le Graverand MP, Buck RJ, Wyman BT, et al. Subregional femorotibial cartilage morphology in women-comparison between healthy controls and participants with different grades of radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009; 17: 1177-1185.
42. Lepore N, Brun CA, Pennec X, et al. Mean template for tensor-based morphometry using deformation tensors. In:, Ayache N, Ourselin S, Maeder AJ, eds. Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention-MICCAI 2007, Part II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer). 2007; 826-833.