A Classifier for the Categorization of Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis

AM
by Amy Morton1 view·Updated Jul 15, 2020

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated

  1. This is Amy Morton On behalf of my co authors,
  2. Brown Medical School, Rhode Island Hospital in Stanford School of
  3. Medicine would like to present a classifier for the categorization
  4. of thumb carpal metacarpal osteoarthritis.
  5. Some seems you A is a disease of bone cartilage.
  6. Symptoms include pain and impairment in the base of the
  7. thumb. Using CT scans, we can quantify bone pathology and
  8. look at relative cinematics of the joint.
  9. Seems you A.
  10. Is a disease that progresses and has highly individualized rates
  11. of progression, one of the metrics associated with away Austro
  12. fight volume.
  13. Recently, we have come up with a method to quantify
  14. Oster fight volume, using that as a surrogate for a
  15. metric of disease progression.
  16. Another factor associated with away is joint model alignment or
  17. subluxation. Using articular surface curvature based coordinate systems, we can
  18. compute relative positions of the metacarpal from the trapeze IAM
  19. and analyzed these in three D or in anatomical directions.
  20. Using longitudinal data captured over a course of six years,
  21. with patients presenting with osteoarthritis as well as an age
  22. matched cohort, we can investigate and classify away using these
  23. metrics. Competing Austria fight balling for every individual at every
  24. time point.
  25. We can then use absolute magnitude and the rate of
  26. progression as specified by linear regression within a subject.
  27. To then classify our away individuals into an advanced or
  28. stable cohort using linear mixed models with random interception slope,
  29. weaken. Then analyze the regression of the advanced away category
  30. versus the that of stable away and compare that as
  31. well to the control covert.
  32. Note the significance in both starting baseline value of our
  33. study as well.
  34. A ce the slope between advanced away as well, a
  35. stable and control using the same metrics.
  36. We can then investigate the differences as observed in dorsal
  37. subluxation over time.
  38. Advanced category endorses subluxation as measured in the flexion position
  39. had a very significant difference in both.
  40. Intercept in both are starting value of dorsal subluxation and
  41. the rate of dorsal subluxation.
  42. Over time, similar trends were observed in six of 11
  43. of R C T positions, grasps, grass, loaded, pinch loaded
  44. induction and abduction.
  45. This classifications metrics and our initial findings can be important.
  46. Stepping stones in a heterogeneous point patient population.
  47. Thank you