CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Methods Inf Med 2024; 63(01/02): 001-010
DOI: 10.1055/a-2305-2115
Original Article

Deep Learning for Predicting Progression of Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis Based on Lateral Knee Radiographs, Demographic Data, and Symptomatic Assessments

Neslihan Bayramoglu
1   Research Unit of Health Sciences and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
,
Martin Englund
2   Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
,
Ida K. Haugen
3   Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway
,
Muneaki Ishijima
4   Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Simo Saarakkala
1   Research Unit of Health Sciences and Technology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
5   Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
› Institutsangaben
Funding Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST) Funding Acknowledgment. MOST comprised four cooperative grants (Felson—AG18820; Torner—AG18832, Lewis—AG18947, and Nevitt—AG19069) funded by the National Institutes of Health, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, and conducted by MOST study investigators. This manuscript was prepared using MOST data and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of MOST investigators. We would like to acknowledge the NORDFORSK grant from the project “Molecular and structural biomarkers for personalised care in osteoarthritis” (Project No.: 116406).

Abstract

Objective In this study, we propose a novel framework that utilizes deep learning and attention mechanisms to predict the radiographic progression of patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) over a period of 7 years.

Material and Methods This study included subjects (1,832 subjects, 3,276 knees) from the baseline of the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST). Patellofemoral joint regions of interest were identified using an automated landmark detection tool (BoneFinder) on lateral knee X-rays. An end-to-end deep learning method was developed for predicting PFOA progression based on imaging data in a five-fold cross-validation setting. To evaluate the performance of the models, a set of baselines based on known risk factors were developed and analyzed using gradient boosting machine (GBM). Risk factors included age, sex, body mass index, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score, and the radiographic osteoarthritis stage of the tibiofemoral joint (Kellgren and Lawrence [KL] score). Finally, to increase predictive power, we trained an ensemble model using both imaging and clinical data.

Results Among the individual models, the performance of our deep convolutional neural network attention model achieved the best performance with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.856 and average precision (AP) of 0.431, slightly outperforming the deep learning approach without attention (AUC = 0.832, AP = 0.4) and the best performing reference GBM model (AUC = 0.767, AP = 0.334). The inclusion of imaging data and clinical variables in an ensemble model allowed statistically more powerful prediction of PFOA progression (AUC = 0.865, AP = 0.447), although the clinical significance of this minor performance gain remains unknown. The spatial attention module improved the predictive performance of the backbone model, and the visual interpretation of attention maps focused on the joint space and the regions where osteophytes typically occur.

Conclusion This study demonstrated the potential of machine learning models to predict the progression of PFOA using imaging and clinical variables. These models could be used to identify patients who are at high risk of progression and prioritize them for new treatments. However, even though the accuracy of the models were excellent in this study using the MOST dataset, they should be still validated using external patient cohorts in the future.

Authors' Contribution

N.B. originated the idea of the study, and performed the experiments and took major part in writing of the manuscript. S.S. supervised the project. All authors participated in producing the final manuscript draft and approved the final submitted version.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. August 2023

Angenommen: 29. März 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
11. April 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. Mai 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • References

  • 1 Lankhorst NE, Damen J, Oei EH. et al. Incidence, prevalence, natural course and prognosis of patellofemoral osteoarthritis: the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25 (05) 647-653
  • 2 Duncan R, Peat G, Thomas E, Wood L, Hay E, Croft P. How do pain and function vary with compartmental distribution and severity of radiographic knee osteoarthritis?. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008; 47 (11) 1704-1707
  • 3 Crossley KM, Hinman RS. The patellofemoral joint: the forgotten joint in knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19 (07) 765-767
  • 4 Duncan R, Peat G, Thomas E, Hay EM, Croft P. Incidence, progression and sequence of development of radiographic knee osteoarthritis in a symptomatic population. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70 (11) 1944-1948
  • 5 Duncan R, Peat G, Thomas E, Wood L, Hay E, Croft P. Does isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis matter?. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009; 17 (09) 1151-1155
  • 6 Kim YM, Joo YB. Patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Relat Res 2012; 24 (04) 193-200
  • 7 van Middelkoop M, Bennell KL, Callaghan MJ. et al. International patellofemoral osteoarthritis consortium: consensus statement on the diagnosis, burden, outcome measures, prognosis, risk factors and treatment. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2018; 47: 666-675
  • 8 Kobayashi S, Pappas E, Fransen M, Refshauge K, Simic M. The prevalence of patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016; 24 (10) 1697-1707
  • 9 Macri EM. Patellofemoral osteoarthritis: characterizing knee alignment and morphology [PhD thesis]. British Columbia: University of British Columbia; 2017
  • 10 Peat G, Duncan RC, Wood LRJ, Thomas E, Muller S. Clinical features of symptomatic patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2012; 14 (02) R63
  • 11 de Lange-Brokaar BJE, Bijsterbosch J, Kornaat PR. et al. Radiographic progression of knee osteoarthritis is associated with MRI abnormalities in both the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joint. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016; 24 (03) 473-479
  • 12 Bayramoglu N, Nieminen MT, Saarakkala S. Automated detection of patellofemoral osteoarthritis from knee lateral view radiographs using deep learning: data from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2021; 29 (10) 1432-1447
  • 13 Bayramoglu N, Nieminen MT, Saarakkala S. Machine learning based texture analysis of patella from X-rays for detecting patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Int J Med Inform 2022; 157: 104627
  • 14 Lindner C, Thiagarajah S, Wilkinson JM, Wallis GA, Cootes TF. arcOGEN Consortium. Fully automatic segmentation of the proximal femur using random forest regression voting. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2013; 32 (08) 1462-1472
  • 15 Friedman JH. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Statist 2001; 29: 1189-1232
  • 16 Roemer FW, Guermazi A, Hunter DJ. et al. The association of meniscal damage with joint effusion in persons without radiographic osteoarthritis: the Framingham and MOST osteoarthritis studies. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009; 17 (06) 748-753
  • 17 Yan Y, Kawahara J, Hamarneh G. Melanoma recognition via visual attention. In: Information Processing in Medical Imaging. Paper presented at: 26th International Conference, IPMI 2019, June 2–7, 2019, Hong Kong, China. Proceedings 26. Springer; 2019:793–804
  • 18 Simonyan K, Zisserman A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition arXiv preprint. arXiv 1409.1556 2014
  • 19 He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imageNet classification. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision; 2015:1026–1034
  • 20 Lin TY, Goyal P, Girshick R, He K, Doll'ar P. Focal loss for dense object detection. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision; 2017:2980–2988
  • 21 Selvaraju RR, Cogswell M, Das A, Vedantam R, Parikh D, Batra D. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision 2017:618–626
  • 22 Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N. et al. Attention is all you need. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2017; 30
  • 23 Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T. et al. LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2017: 3146-3154
  • 24 Brier GW. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Mon Weather Rev 1950; 78: 1-3
  • 25 DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44 (03) 837-845
  • 26 Lundberg SM, Lee S-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30. 2017: 4765-4774
  • 27 Tiulpin A, Klein S, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA. et al. Multimodal machine learning-based knee osteoarthritis progression prediction from plain radiographs and clinical data. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 20038
  • 28 Niu Z, Zhong G, Yu H. A review on the attention mechanism of deep learning. Neurocomputing 2021; 452: 48-62