How do statistical differences in matrixsensitive magnetic resonance outcomes translate into clinical assignment rules?

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 438-439

  Spencer, Richard G ^a   Pleshko, Nancy ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING   (United States)

^b Temple University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; STATISTICAL MODEL; ARTICLE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE;

HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES;

EID: 84880864775     PISSN: 1067151X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-07-438     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Lin PC, Reiter DA, Spencer RG: Sensitivity and specificity of univariate MRI analysis of experimentally degraded cartilage. Magn Reson Med 2009;62(5): 1311-1318.
2. Li X, Benjamin Ma C, Link TM, et al: In vivo T(1rho) and T(2) mapping of articular cartilage in osteoarthritis of the knee using 3 T MRI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15(7):789-797.
3. Chalela JA, Kidwell CS, Nentwich LM, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in emergency assessment of patients with suspected acute stroke: A prospective comparison. Lancet 2007;369(9558):293-298.
4. Lin PC, Irrechukwu O, Roque R, Hancock B, Fishbein KW, Spencer RG: Multivariate analysis of cartilage degradation using the support vector machine algorithm. Magn Reson Med 2012;67(6):1815-1826.
5. Lin PC, Reiter DA, Spencer RG: Classification of degraded cartilage through multiparametric MRI analysis. J Magn Reson 2009;201(1):61-71.