Paper deep dive
Measurements Automatically Extracted from Zero Echo Time MRI Using Deep Learning Image Segmentation and Geometric Modeling Agree with Expert Manual Readings
Jack Consolini, Eric A. Bogner, Meghan Sahr, Matthew F. Koff, Kevin M. Koch, Hollis G. Potter
Intelligence
Status: not_run | Model: - | Prompt: - | Confidence: 0%
Entities (0)
Relation Signals (0)
No relation signals yet.
Cypher Suggestions (0)
No Cypher suggestions yet.
Abstract
Abstract:Computed tomography (CT) remains the reference for 3D osseous morphometry in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) but requires ionizing radiation and manual measurement. Zero echo time (ZTE) MRI visualizes cortical bone and yields FAI angles that agree with CT, but automated angle extraction remains limited. We developed and validated automated FAI angle computation from ZTE MRI and assessed agreement with expert manual measurements in a cross-sectional study (level of evidence, 3). Pelvic ZTE MRI was acquired in 73 participants (mean age 36.8 +/- 18.5 years; 51 women, 22 men), yielding 135 hips. nnU-Net was trained on 100 manually curated hips to segment the femur, pelvis, and three osseous landmarks. Custom geometric algorithms computed alpha, femoral neck-shaft, Tonnis, coronal and sagittal center-edge, and acetabular version angles from inferred segmentations. Measurements on 35 test hips were compared with the mean of two radiologists' manual measures using intraclass correlation (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Dice exceeded 0.96 for bone and ranged from 0.65 to 0.83 for landmarks. Median landmark error was 0.38 mm (femoral head), 0.82 mm (lateral acetabulum), and <2.5 mm (medial acetabulum, greater trochanter). Interrater ICC was excellent for acetabular version, coronal center-edge, and Tonnis (>=0.82) but poor for alpha and femoral neck-shaft. Model versus rater-mean agreement was excellent for acetabular version, coronal center-edge, and Tonnis (0.92-0.96), good for mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge (0.74), and fair for alpha (0.45) and femoral neck-shaft (0.55). Model Bland-Altman limits of agreement were narrower than interrater limits for most angles. Fully automated morphometric assessment from ZTE MRI is feasible and performs comparably to expert readers for most coverage and version angles.
Tags
Links
- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07368v1
- Canonical: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07368v1
Trouble viewing inline? Open PDF directly â
Full Text
48,611 characters extracted from source content.
Expand or collapse full text
Measurements Automatically Extracted from Zero Echo Time MRI Using Deep Learning Image Segmentation and Geometric Modeling Agree with Expert Manual Readings Jack Consolini Address correspondence to: Jack Consolini, M.S., Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY 10021, USA. Email: consolinij@hss.edu. Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA Eric A. Bogner Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA Meghan Sahr Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA Matthew F. Koff Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA Kevin M. Koch Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA Hollis G. Potter Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA Abstract Background: Computed tomography (CT) remains the reference for three-dimensional osseous morphometry for patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) but entails ionizing radiation and manual measurement. Zero echo time (ZTE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) permits visualization of cortical bone, and FAI angles from ZTE MRI agree with CT; however, automated angle extraction remains limited. Purpose: To develop and validate automated FAI angle computation from ZTE MRI that will have good to excellent agreement to manual measurements from expert musculoskeletal radiologists. Study Design: Cross-Sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Pelvic ZTE MRI was acquired on 73 participants (mean ± standard deviation age 36.8±18.536.8± 18.5 years; 51 women/22 men) yielding 135 hips for inclusion. An nnU-Net model was trained on 100 manually curated hips to automatically segment the femur, pelvis, and three osseous landmarks. Custom-developed automated geometric analysis algorithms computed alpha, femoral neck-shaft, Tönnis, coronal and sagittal center-edge, and acetabular version angles from inferred segmentations. Measurements on 35 test hips were compared with the mean of manual measurements made by two musculoskeletal radiologists using intraclass correlation (ICC) and BlandâAltman analysis. Results: Dice coefficient exceeded 0.96 for bone segmentation. Landmark segmentation Dice accuracy ranged from 0.65â0.83. Median landmark error was 0.38 m (femoral head), 0.82 m (lateral acetabulum), and <<2.5 m (medial acetabulum and greater trochanter). ICC was excellent for acetabular versions, coronal center-edge, and Tönnis (ICCâ„0.82ICCâ„ 0.82) but poor for alpha and femoral neck-shaft. Model versus rater-mean agreement was excellent for acetabular version, coronal center-edge, and Tönnis (0.92â0.96), good for mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge (0.74), and fair for alpha (0.45) and femoral neck-shaft (0.55). BlandâAltman limits of agreement for the model were narrower than interrater limits for most angles. Conclusion: Fully automated quantitative morphometric assessment from ZTE MRI is feasible and performs comparably to an expert reader for most coverage and version angles. Clinical Relevance: This approach may reduce adjunct CT for preoperative morphometric assessment of FAI and hip dysplasia in athletes, young active patients, and women of reproductive age, providing standardized, automated angle measurements from a single radiation-free MRI examination. Key Terms: femoroacetabular impingement; hip dysplasia; magnetic resonance imaging; automated morphometry; hip preservation; deep-learning Abbreviations AIR Adaptive image receive CT Computed tomography DICOM Digital imaging and communications in medicine FAI Femoroacetabular impingement HIPAA Health insurance portability and accountability act ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient MRI Magnetic resonance imaging NIfTI Neuroimaging informatics technology initiative nnU-Net No-new convolutional network for biomedical image segmentation PACS Picture archiving and communication system RANSAC Random Sample Consensus SDdiff_diff Standard deviation of differences YOE Years of experience ZTE Zero echo time 1 Introduction Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and dysplasia of the hip disrupt normal joint biomechanics and are established contributors to early osteoarthritis in young and active patients 3, 13, 16, 7, 42, 36, 26, 25. Abnormal femoral and/or acetabular morphology produces pathologic contact during hip motion 3, 13, 16. Common sub-types include pincer (acetabular overcoverage), cam (femoral headâneck asphericity), or combined types 1, 23, 30. Hip dysplasia is characterized by insufficient acetabular coverage of the femoral head, causing edge loading of the shallow socket 26, 25 and is often accompanied by a cam deformity, compounding symptoms 10, 17. Abnormal acetabular shape is common in young populations, with radiographic evidence of FAI-related morphology in 75â95% of athletes 30, 33, 40 and 38% of hips evaluated for pain 16. Progressive impingement contributes to labral and chondral injury and is implicated in early osteoarthritis 15, 18, making accurate morphologic characterization essential to hip-preservation surgical decision-making 3, 36, 1. Pre-operative assessment relies on radiography for screening and CT for detailed three-dimensional osseous morphometry, while MRI remains essential for soft-tissue evaluation of the labrum and articular cartilage 3, 23, 22, 11, 12. Angular measurements, including alpha, femoral neck-shaft, acetabular version, and center-edge angles, guide operative planning but are limited on radiographs by projection error and patient positioning 34, 9, 31, 35. CT is therefore widely used for quantitative morphometry and automated angle extraction has been developed for CT 37. Automation of CT morphometry avoids the excess time-consumption and observer bias of manual measurements 32, 29, 28, however, adjunct CT delivers ionizing radiation to a population of primarily young athletes and women of reproductive age 3, 36. Zero echo time (ZTE) MRI provides cortical bone contrast analogous to CT without ionizing radiation 12, 21, and manual ZTE morphometry agrees with CT 3. ZTE MRI could provide comprehensive single-exam morphometric and soft-tissue evaluation, however, fully automated angle extraction has not been established for ZTE MRI. Prior automated MRI approaches rely on statistical shape modeling 39, 4, 8, which may degrade with atypical anatomy. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to (1) develop a fully automated pipeline that segments the femur, pelvis, and osseous landmarks from pelvic ZTE MRI and computes alpha, femoral neck-shaft, Tönnis, coronal and sagittal center-edge, and acetabular version angles using geometric modeling; and (2) evaluate agreement of automated angles with expert manual measurements. It was hypothesized that automated angles would agree with independent manual measurements from two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists at a level comparable to interrater reliability. 2 Methods 2.1 Enrollment This prospective and retrospective single-institution cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study (Level of Evidence I) was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB# 2015-441 and 2025-1851) and conducted in compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Prospective participants enrolled with written informed consent. Retrospective participants were identified from clinically acquired pelvic MRI under a waiver of informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Inclusion required pelvic ZTE MRI with adequate image quality for manual segmentation; no participants were excluded after enrollment. A subset overlap with a prior publication evaluating manual ZTEâCT agreement 3, which did not include automated angle computation. Sample size necessary for a held-out test set was estimated prospectively using Fisherâs z-transformation 6 for a one-sided test (H0H_0: ICC =0=0; α=0.05α=0.05), with Breighner et al. 3 ZTE interrater ICC values as anticipated effect sizes. A minimum of 23 hips was required for 95% power for all eight angles. 2.2 Image Acquisition Pelvic ZTE MRI was acquired on a clinical 3.0 T scanner (SIGNATM Premier, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI) with either a combination of a 30-channel adaptive image receive (AIR) anterior array with a 60-channel embedded AIR posterior array coil or 32-channel body array coil for larger patients, or a 32-channel cardiac coil for smaller patients (GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI). Patients were positioned feet-first supine with the feet oriented neutrally and secured. ZTE was acquired following routine clinical pelvis MRI. Participants enrolled between 2017 and 2019 received prototype ZTE sequences post-processed as described by Breighner et al. 3; subsequent participants received the FDA-approved oZTEo sequence (GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI) (Figure 1a) with proprietary shading correction. Images were acquired in the axial or coronal plane. The acquisition parameters for the prototype ZTE sequences were as follows: echo time, 0 ms; repetition time, 425â528 ms; flip angle, 1°; receiver bandwidth, ± 62.5 kHz; number of excitations, 4; field of view, 36â44 cm; slice thickness, 1.1â1.5 m; number of slices, 100â200; acquisition matrix, 320Ă320320Ă 320; and scan time, ⌠5 minutes. The acquisition parameters for the oZTEo sequence were as follows: echo time, 0.016 ms; repetition time, 504.73 ms; flip angle, 1°; receiver bandwidth, ± 83.33 kHz; field of view, 32â38 cm; slice thickness, 1.0â1.3 m; number of slices, 180â320; acquisition matrix, 320Ă320320Ă 320; and scan time, ⌠5â7 minutes. Figure 1: Representative zero echo time (ZTE) hip magnetic resonance images (MRI) oZTEo acquisitions and manual segmentation of pelvis and femur. (a) Clinical oZTEo sequence acquired in axial (top) or coronal (bottom) orientation without manual post-processing. Displayed images received windowing to mimic CT contrast: level 1026 / window 1080. (b) Manual segmentation of femur (red) and pelvis (green). (c) Three fiducial landmarks were placed: lateral acetabulum (blue), medial weight-bearing acetabulum (yellow), and distal greater trochanter (cyan). The model was trained to predict femoral and pelvic masks plus these landmarks. 2.3 Manual Angular Measurements Standard measurements of hip morphology were derived for held-out test hips by board-certified musculoskeletal radiologists with over 20 and 10 years of experience (YOE), radiologist 1 (E.A.B.) and radiologist 2 (M.S.), respectively. Angles measured were alpha, femoral neck-shaft, coronal and mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge, Tönnis, and acetabular version (at 1, 2, and 3 oâclock positions) angles. These measurements constitute the local clinical standard for assessment of FAI morphology with CT 3. Images were provided within the radiologistsâ native picture archiving and communication system (PACS) viewer, Sectra IDS7 (Sectra Medical Systems, Linköping, Sweden). All angles were measured to the nearest 0.1°. Manual measurements served as the reference standard for clinical validation of the automated pipeline. 2.4 Automated Segmentation Model Development 2.4.1 Manual Segmentation of Femur and Pelvis The entire bone (trabecular and cortical) of the femur and pelvis was manually segmented in ITK-SNAP (v3.8.1) 41 from all hips by a biomedical engineer with greater than 3 YOE (J.C.) and reviewed as needed by a biomedical engineer with greater than 18 YOE (M.F.K.) and a board-certified radiologist with greater than 30 YOE (H.G.P.) (Figure 1b). High bone-to-soft-tissue contrast on ZTE images facilitated delineation. Bilateral exams were split at the midline so each hip could be assigned independently to training, validation, or test sets and to support acetabular version measurement. 2.4.2 Manual Identification of Fiducial Landmarks Three fiducial landmarks were placed as separate labels within the bone masks: lateral acetabulum, medial weight-bearing acetabulum, and distal greater trochanter (J.C.; reviewed by E.A.B.) (Figure 1c). Landmarks were dilated to uniform 5-m spheres. 2.4.3 Auto-segmentation Model Training Data Preparation: Segmentation was performed using no-new convolutional network for biomedical image segmentation (nnU-Net) 20. Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) volumes were converted to neuroimaging informatics technology initiative (NIfTI) format, standardized to left-posterior-inferior orientation, and cropped to the side of interest. Six labels were defined: background (0), femur (1), pelvis (2), lateral acetabulum (3), medial weight-bearing acetabulum (4), and distal greater trochanter (5). Training: The default nnU-Net 3D full-resolution configuration was used. Training employed a weighted composite of cross-entropy and Dice loss with class weights of 3 for femur and 15 for fiducial labels relative to pelvis. Five-fold cross validation with an 80/20 train/validation split (per fold) was employed. Training continued until femur and pelvis mean validation Dice exceeded 0.90 and fiducial Dice exceeded 0.75 (or overall Dice exceeded 0.80), or 1000 epochs. Training and inference were performed on a single NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPU (16 GB VRAM) on an AWS Elastic-Compute Cloud g4dn.4xlarge instance running Ubuntu 22.04 with 4 CPUs across 2 cores, 125 GB of RAM, and CUDA-enabled (v12.8). Inference: Final segmentations were generated by using an ensemble of all five-fold-specific models using sliding-window prediction with a tile step size of 0.25 (nnU-Net default, 0.5), Gaussian fusion, and mirror-based test-time augmentation. If fiducial labels were absent from the ensemble mask, fold-specific predictions were evaluated for anatomically plausible placement (e.g., distal greater trochanter in contact with femur) before imputation into the final mask. Predictions received automated post-processing island removal for femur and pelvic labels, with only the largest connected regions retained. 2.5 Automated Angle Computation All angles were computed in world coordinates (millimeters) from predicted segmentations. All described calculations assume standard Left-Posterior-Inferior-oriented NIfTI data converted to NumPy arrays via sitk.GetArrayFromImage() 27. The axial (SuperiorâInferior) axis, coronal (AnteriorâPosterior) axis, and sagittal (RightâLeft) axis are identified at runtime from the image direction cosine matrix by finding the column most aligned with the corresponding world directions. 2.5.1 Landmark and Center-of-Mass Localization The center of mass of each predicted label was calculated in voxel space using scipy.ndimage.center_of_mass 38 and converted to world coordinates using the image affine defined by origin, spacing, and direction cosines. 2.5.2 Femoral Reference Points Two femoral reference points were derived from the femur mask (label 1) and distal greater trochanter landmark (label 5). The femur canal center is identified on the greater trochanter axial slice. The distal shaft center is identified on the most distal axial slice in the distal 5% of the volume whose femur voxel count was â„ 95% of the mean count across a 10-slice sliding window. A conditional fallback was in place requiring the most distal slice contains >>10 femur voxels. Slice-wise 2D centers of mass were converted to world coordinates. 2.5.3 Femoral Head Center The femoral head center was estimated by robust Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) sphere fitting to the proximal femoral surface. The femur was divided at the greater trochanter; the proximal half closer in axial position to the medial acetabulum (label 4) was retained. Surface points were obtained by binary erosion. Candidate spheres were fit from random 4-point subsets over 500 iterations with 3-m inlier tolerance. The best model was refined by nonlinear least squares on inliers. 2.5.4 Automated Angle Definitions Angles were defined by the angle between vector pairs in world space using the dot product. Femoral neck-shaft angle: Angle between the neck axis (greater trochanter to femoral head center) and shaft axis (greater trochanter to distal femur center). Tönnis angle: Angle between the inter-acetabular line and a horizontal reference constructed at the lateral acetabulum (label 3) coronal/sagittal coordinates and medial acetabulum (label 4) axial coordinate; signed inferiorly when the lateral acetabulum lay below the medial acetabulum. Coronal center-edge angle: Angle between the femoral head center-to-lateral acetabulum vector and a vertical reference at the lateral acetabulum axial level and femoral head coronal/sagittal coordinates. Mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge angle: In the sagittal plane through the femoral head center, an anterior-inferior pelvic guide point was identified on the femoral-head sagittal slice. From the head center, 181 rays spanning 0° to 80° were cast in the sagittal plane; the sourcil was the first pelvic contact on the ray best aligned with the guide direction (largest vertical angle used to break ties). The angle was measured between the superior-inferior axis and the head-to-sourcil vector. Acetabular version (1, 2, 3): Axial slice levels were placed at clock-face positions 30°, 60°, and 90° from the femoral head equator toward the superior pole. At each level, posterior-lateral and anterior-lateral acetabular cusps were identified after splitting the pelvis mask at the femoral head coronal index. Version was measured relative to a reference line orthogonal to the line connecting ipsilateral and contralateral posterior pelvic points; retroversion was assigned a negative value. Alpha angle: Radial planes containing the femoral neck axis were rotated in 2° increments about the neck. On each plane, anterior head-neck junction points were identified along the femoral surface mesh; the plane with the lowest junction-band curvature variation was selected. The control point was the farthest anterior junction-band point from the head center, with optional distal extension when a head-cap gate indicated spherical-cap clustering. Alpha was the angle between the neck axis and the head-center-to-control-point vector. 2.6 Statistical Analysis 2.6.1 Model Performance Held-out test segmentations were evaluated with Dice similarity coefficient, Jaccard index, 95th-percentile Hausdorff distance, and relative volume difference versus ground truth. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation [minimum, maximum] per structure. 2.6.2 Fiducial Localization Landmark center-point error was defined as the 3D Euclidean distance (m) between predicted and ground-truth centers for each fiducial label; femoral head center error used the RANSAC-derived head center. Error is summarized by landmark. 2.6.3 Clinical Validation Angles derived from manual measurements from two board-certified musculoskeletal radiologists (Rater 1 = E.A.B. and Rater 2 = M.S.) were compared with automated ensemble angles on test hips. Reliability was assessed with two-way random-effects, single-measurement, absolute-agreement ICC for inter-rater (Rater 1 versus Rater 2), intra-rater (Rater 1 repeat reads), and model versus rater-mean agreement. ICC was interpreted as: <<0.40 poor, 0.40â0.59 fair, 0.60â0.74 good, 0.75â1.00 excellent 5, with statistical significance set at α=0.05α=0.05. BlandâAltman analysis 2 provided comparison of bias (mean difference) and 95% limits of agreement, computed as 1.96 times the standard deviation of differences (SDdiff_diff) for interrater (Rater 1 versus Rater 2) and model versus rater-mean. Difference was defined as Rater 1 â- Rater 2 and Model â- mean(Rater 1, Rater 2), respectively. Statistical analyses were performed in Python using SciPy (v1.13.1), NumPy (v1.26.4), pandas (v2.3.3), and Pingouin (v0.6.0). 3 Results 3.1 Participant Demographics In total, 73 participants (51 women, mean ± SD [range] age: 36.8±17.736.8± 17.7 [14.5â82.9] years, BMI: 23.2±4.023.2± 4.0 [17.5â40.3] kg/m2; men: age 38.4±20.638.4± 20.6 [15.9â76.8] years, BMI: 28.2±5.928.2± 5.9 [19.6â42.5] kg/m2) and 135 hips were included (Table 1). One hundred hips were allocated to model training and cross-validation. Manual angle validation was performed on 35 held-out test hips by two musculoskeletal radiologists; one radiologist repeated measurements on 10 test hips for intra-rater assessment. Table 1: Participant Demographics Metric Sex N (%) Mean ± SD [Range] Age 73 36.8±18.536.8± 18.5 [14.5â82.9] Female 51 (70.0) 36.2±17.736.2± 17.7 [14.5â82.9] Male 22 (30.0) 38.4±20.638.4± 20.6 [15.9â76.8] BMI 73 24.7±5.224.7± 5.2 [17.5â42.5] Female 51 (70.0) 23.2±4.023.2± 4.0 [17.5â40.3] Male 22 (30.0) 28.2±5.928.2± 5.9 [19.6â42.5] Ethnicity 73 Hispanic or Latino 4 (5.5) Not Hispanic or Latino 66 (90.0) Unknown 3 (4.5) Race 73 American Indian or Alaska Native 0 (0.0) Asian 3 (2.7) Black or African American 1 (1.4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 (0.0) White 61 (83.6) Other/Unknown 9 (12.3) Enrollment 73 Prospective 37 (50.7) Retrospective 36 (49.3) Bilateral Exam 73 Unilateral 9 (12.3) Bilateral 64 (87.7) ZTE Acquisition 73 Prototype 23 (31.5) oZTEo 50 (68.5) Note.âN = number of participants, BMI = body mass index. Age and BMI are displayed as mean ± standard deviation [range]; N is displayed as count (%). 3.2 Segmentation Performance On the held-out test set, femur and pelvis segmentation achieved high overlap (Dice 0.98±0.010.98± 0.01 and 0.97±0.010.97± 0.01, respectively) (Table 2). Fiducial labels had lower but acceptable overlap (lateral acetabulum 0.83±0.090.83± 0.09; medial acetabulum 0.65±0.180.65± 0.18; distal greater trochanter 0.66±0.220.66± 0.22). Jaccard index was consistent with Dice, with excellent overlap for bone (femur 0.96±0.010.96± 0.01; pelvis 0.94±0.020.94± 0.02) and moderate overlap for fiducials (0.71±0.120.71± 0.12 lateral acetabulum, 0.51±0.190.51± 0.19 medial acetabulum, 0.52±0.200.52± 0.20 distal greater trochanter). Relative volume difference was greatest for femur and pelvis (3.66±2.133.66± 2.13 cm3 and 4.50±3.114.50± 3.11 cm3, respectively), whereas fiducial volume differences remained an order of magnitude smaller (approximately 0.12â0.15 cm3), apart from outlier cases with incomplete fiducial predictions. Mean femur and fiducial Hausdorff distances remained 1â4 m, reflecting small surface offsets on compact landmarks and the more linear femur geometry. The mean Hausdorff of the pelvis was 12.2 m, with greater offset for larger geometries. Table 2: Auto-segmentation model performance Label Structure n Dice Jaccard Index Hausdorff Distance (m) Volume Difference (cm3) 1 Femur 35 0.98±0.010.98± 0.01 0.96±0.010.96± 0.01 [0.93, 0.98] 3.5±1.43.5± 1.4 [1.4, 6.7] 3.66±2.133.66± 2.13 [0.83, 9.13] 2 Pelvis 35 0.97±0.010.97± 0.01 0.94±0.020.94± 0.02 [0.87, 0.97] 12.2±10.412.2± 10.4 [3.0, 56.6] 4.50±3.114.50± 3.11 [0.76, 13.25] 3 Lateral Acetabulum 35 0.83±0.090.83± 0.09 0.71±0.120.71± 0.12 [0.40, 0.92] 2.0±0.82.0± 0.8 [1.0, 5.0] 0.12±0.990.12± 0.99 [0.01, 0.39] 4 Medial Acetabulum 35 0.65±0.180.65± 0.18 0.51±0.190.51± 0.19 [0.10, 0.84] 3.5±1.63.5± 1.6 [1.0, 7.8] 0.15±0.130.15± 0.13 [0.01, 0.63] 5 Distal Greater Trochanter 35 0.66±0.220.66± 0.22 0.52±0.200.52± 0.20 [0.02, 0.84] 3.6±2.43.6± 2.4 [1.4, 11.2] 0.15±0.150.15± 0.15 [0.00, 0.73] Note.ân = number of hips, m = millimeters. All metrics are relative comparisons of ground truth to predicted segmentations before any prediction clean-up. Cross-validation mean pseudo Dice and test set Dice score reported as mean ± standard deviation. Jaccard index, 95th percentile Hausdorff distance, and relative volume difference reported as mean ± standard deviation [range]. A maximum of 35 hips for each label were possible within the validation and test set, respectively. 3.3 Fiducial Localization Center-point error was smallest for the femoral head (0.38±0.180.38± 0.18 m; median 0.38 m) and lateral acetabulum (1.03±0.781.03± 0.78 m; median 0.82 m). The medial acetabulum and distal greater trochanter had greater error (2.46±1.292.46± 1.29 m and 2.54±1.772.54± 1.77 m; medians 2.48 and 1.97 m, respectively), with wider ranges when trochanter morphology was indistinct. 3.4 Clinical Validation 3.4.1 Interrater Agreement Acetabular versions 1 (ICC: 0.82), 2 (ICC: 0.86), and 3 (ICC: 0.92), coronal center-edge (ICC: 0.93), and Tönnis angle (ICC: 0.93) showed excellent interrater reliability (p<0.001p<0.001) (Table 3 and Figure 2, Column 1). Mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge had fair ICC (0.45, p<0.001p<0.001). Alpha (ICC: 0.20, p=0.129p=0.129) and femoral neck-shaft angle (ICC: 0.20, p=0.051p=0.051) had poor reliability. Acetabular versions 1, 2, and 3, coronal center-edge, and Tönnis angle had small biases of +2.67+2.67°, +1.11+1.11°, +0.43+0.43°, +1.29+1.29°, and â0.12-0.12°, respectively. Acetabular version 3, coronal center-edge, Tönnis angle had smaller 1.96ĂSDdiff1.96ĂSD_diff of 2.48°â3.03° than acetabular versions 1 and 2 with 1.96ĂSDdiff1.96ĂSD_diff of 4.53° and 3.59°, respectively. Mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge had large systematic disagreement (â7.91±7.71-7.91± 7.71°). The widest limit of agreement was observed for alpha (11.54°), though only a small bias â1.62-1.62° was observed. Femoral neck-shaft angle had moderate disagreement (+3.18±4.33+3.18± 4.33°). Table 3: Interrater agreement assessed via ICC and BlandâAltman Intraclass Correlation Coefficient BlandâAltman (°) Angle n ICC [95% CI] p Reliability Bias ± 1.96ĂSDdiff_diff Alpha 35 0.20 [â-0.14, 0.49] 0.129 Poor â1.62±11.54-1.62± 11.54 Acetabular version 1 35 0.82 [0.58, 0.92] <<0.001 Excellent +2.67±4.53+2.67± 4.53 Acetabular version 2 35 0.86 [0.74, 0.93] <<0.001 Excellent +1.11±3.59+1.11± 3.59 Acetabular version 3 35 0.92 [0.85, 0.96] <<0.001 Excellent +0.43±2.48+0.43± 2.48 Coronal center-edge 35 0.93 [0.85, 0.97] <<0.001 Excellent +1.29±3.03+1.29± 3.03 Femoral neck-shaft 35 0.20 [â-0.07, 0.47] 0.051 Poor +3.18±4.33+3.18± 4.33 Mid-acetabular sagittal CE 35 0.45 [â-0.04, 0.73] <<0.001 Fair â7.91±7.71-7.91± 7.71 Tönnis 35 0.93 [0.86, 0.96] <<0.001 Excellent â0.12±2.48-0.12± 2.48 Note.âICC = intraclass correlation coefficient, SD = standard deviation, CE = center-edge. ICC reported as point estimate [95% confidence interval]. BlandâAltman: bias ± 1.96ĂSDdiff_diff in degrees. Figure 2: BlandâAltman agreement for automated and manual hip angle measurements on zero echo time (ZTE) magnetic resonance images (MRI). Rows correspond to individual angular measures; two columns compare Rater 1 (E.A.B.) with Rater 2 (M.S.) and the model with the mean of Rater 1 and Rater 2. Points show per-hip differences from the mean paired value; horizontal lines denote mean bias (teal, solid) and ±1.96ĂSDdiff± 1.96ĂSD_diff (light teal, dashed), with the gray band spanning one 1.96ĂSDdiff1.96ĂSD_diff. The zero line is indicated as a thin black dashed line. Tighter point clouds indicate closer agreement; alpha and sagittal center-edge at mid femoral head height show the greatest dispersion. 3.4.2 Intra-rater Agreement Acetabular version 3 (ICC: 0.96), coronal center-edge (ICC: 0.96), and Tönnis angle (ICC: 0.95) remained excellent on 10 repeated reads by Rater 1 (all p<0.001p<0.001), with small biases (+1.31+1.31°, +1.72+1.72°, and â0.54-0.54°) and 1.96ĂSDdiff1.96ĂSD_diff of 1.84°â2.58° (Table 4). Acetabular version 1 showed good reliability (ICC: 0.83, p=0.001p=0.001; bias ±1.96ĂSDdiff± 1.96ĂSD_diff: +1.40±4.05+1.40± 4.05°). Acetabular version 2 (ICC: 0.59, p=0.020p=0.020; +3.13±6.47+3.13± 6.47°) and mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge (ICC: 0.56, p=0.013p=0.013; â7.51±9.61-7.51± 9.61°) were fair, though mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge had a large bias and limits of agreement. Alpha (ICC: â0.18-0.18, p=0.686p=0.686) and femoral neck-shaft angle (ICC: 0.26, p=0.222p=0.222) showed poor reliability, with alpha displaying the widest limits of agreement (+3.50±16.70+3.50± 16.70°) and femoral neck-shaft angle moderate spread (+1.53±5.19+1.53± 5.19°). Table 4: Intra-rater agreement assessed via ICC and BlandâAltman Intraclass Correlation Coefficient BlandâAltman (°) Angle n ICC [95% CI] p Reliability Bias ± 1.96ĂSDdiff_diff Alpha 10 â0.18-0.18 [â-0.78, 0.50] 0.686 Poor +3.50±16.70+3.50± 16.70 Acetabular version 1 10 0.83 [0.49, 0.96] <<0.001 Excellent +1.40±4.05+1.40± 4.05 Acetabular version 2 10 0.59 [0.05, 0.88] 0.020 Fair +3.13±6.47+3.13± 6.47 Acetabular version 3 10 0.96 [0.81, 0.99] <<0.001 Excellent +1.31±1.84+1.31± 1.84 Coronal center-edge 10 0.96 [0.78, 0.99] <<0.001 Excellent +1.72±2.39+1.72± 2.39 Femoral neck-shaft 10 0.26 [â-0.40, 0.75] 0.222 Poor +1.53±5.19+1.53± 5.19 Mid-acetabular sagittal CE 10 0.56 [â-0.02, 0.87] 0.013 Fair â7.51±9.61-7.51± 9.61 Tönnis 10 0.95 [0.83, 0.99] <<0.001 Excellent â0.54±2.58-0.54± 2.58 Note.âICC = intraclass correlation coefficient, SD = standard deviation, CE = center-edge. ICC reported as point estimate [95% confidence interval]. BlandâAltman: bias ± 1.96ĂSDdiff_diff in degrees. 3.4.3 Model vs. Rater-Mean Agreement Automatically computed acetabular versions 1â3, coronal center-edge, and Tönnis showed excellent agreement with rater mean (ICC: 0.92â0.96, all p<0.001p<0.001), with small biases (â1.64-1.64° to +1.11+1.11°) and narrower limits of agreement than interrater (1.85°â2.77°) (Table 5 and Figure 2, Column 2). Automated mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge showed good agreement (ICC: 0.74, p<0.001p<0.001; bias ±1.96ĂSDdiff± 1.96ĂSD_diff: â1.75±5.45-1.75± 5.45°). ICC for automated Alpha (0.45, p=0.003p=0.003) and femoral neck-shaft (0.55, p<0.001p<0.001) were improved from interrater ICC. Femoral neck-shaft had a smaller bias and tighter limits of agreement (+1.88±3.75+1.88± 3.75°) while automated alpha had bias ±1.96ĂSDdiff± 1.96ĂSD_diff consistent with the interrater analysis (â1.91±8.32-1.91± 8.32°). Table 5: Model vs. mean(Rater 1, Rater 2) agreement assessed via ICC and BlandâAltman Intraclass Correlation Coefficient BlandâAltman (°) Angle n ICC [95% CI] p Reliability Bias ± 1.96ĂSDdiff_diff Alpha 35 0.45 [0.15, 0.68] 0.003 Fair â1.91±8.32-1.91± 8.32 Acetabular version 1 35 0.93 [0.80, 0.97] <<0.001 Excellent â1.64±2.77-1.64± 2.77 Acetabular version 2 35 0.96 [0.91, 0.98] <<0.001 Excellent +0.77±1.85+0.77± 1.85 Acetabular version 3 35 0.95 [0.91, 0.98] <<0.001 Excellent +0.48±1.90+0.48± 1.90 Coronal center-edge 35 0.95 [0.87, 0.98] <<0.001 Excellent â1.35±2.24-1.35± 2.24 Femoral neck-shaft 35 0.55 [0.24, 0.75] <<0.001 Fair +1.88±3.75+1.88± 3.75 Mid-acetabular sagittal CE 35 0.74 [0.54, 0.86] <<0.001 Good â1.75±5.45-1.75± 5.45 Tönnis 35 0.92 [0.82, 0.96] <<0.001 Excellent +1.11±2.17+1.11± 2.17 Note.âICC = intraclass correlation coefficient, SD = standard deviation, CE = center-edge. ICC reported as point estimate [95% confidence interval]. BlandâAltman: bias ± 1.96ĂSDdiff_diff in degrees. 4 Discussion This study demonstrates that a fully automated ZTE MRI pipeline combining nnU-Net segmentation, fiducial landmark detection, and geometric modeling can derive hip morphometric angles highly correlated with dual-expert manual measurements. This is the first study to compute alpha, femoral neck-shaft, Tönnis, coronal and sagittal center-edge, and multiple acetabular version angles directly from ZTE MRI using deep learning coupled to explicit landmark-based geometry rather than shape inference alone. The pipeline improves upon previous MRI-native methods that rely on statistical shape models 39, 4, 8 that may degrade in the setting of marked deformity. The fiducial-first approach embeds radiologist-intended anatomic priors while retaining full automation, enabling automated review to function closer to an additional rater rather than a population-based estimation. Accurate bone segmentation and submillimeter to low single-digit millimeter fiducial center-point error support bone and fiducial landmark-based angle computation. Inter-rater reliability using the automated landmarks was excellent for acetabular version, Tönnis, and coronal coverage measures. Model versus mean grades had improved agreement over expert manual interrater data for mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge, indicating this standardized, automated method may produce more reliable results. Poor alpha and femoral neck-shaft measurements are consistent with previous reporting 29, 28, 8, 24, 19 and model versus mean rater consensus was within the inter- and intra-rater agreement range. Evaluating the magnitude of difference for femoral neck-shaft, poor agreement did not indicate clinically significant differences. The femoral neck-shaft angle has a normal range of 120° to 135°, thus a 3° to 5° variation within this range may be inconsequential 3, 32. The alpha angle was the most challenging measure because manual identification of the radial cam-defining plane is inherently variable 29, 28, 8. The automated method selects the flattest junction-band radial section under explicit rules, yielding a reproducible estimate of maximal cam prominence even when numeric agreement with a specific reader is limited. When combined with standard of care pelvis MRI, automated ZTE morphometry could streamline preoperative evaluation of hip-preservation candidates by consolidating osseous and soft-tissue assessment in one study, obviating the need for a CT scan and time-consuming manual hip angle measurements. Post-operative imaging could also be performed with automated measurements to improve reliability of measurements between examinations, which previously may have been performed by raters with varying experience and techniques. As a radiation-sparing examination, credible FAI morphometry within MRI enables a greater ability to safely and accurately track FAI progression in relatively young athletes across seasons. Areas for further study include determining if the use of automated angles improves radiologist and referring physician confidence in measurements, as well as cost and time savings over the current multi-modality imaging workflow. This study had several limitations. Data were acquired at a single institution using a single ZTE acquisition approach while other sites and MRI vendors may utilize other ZTE acquisition and reconstruction techniques 14. We anticipate that our methods are fully translatable if images generated with an alternative sequence undergo semantic segmentation to define the femur and acetabulum. Second, the cohort was not demographically or athletically characterized in detail, and deformity subtype was not systematically classified. Third, most fiducial training labels were placed by a trained research engineer under radiologist oversight rather than annotated directly by a radiologist. Fourth, it may be anticipated that landmark performance will degrade with severe deformity, artifact, or atypical anatomy, particularly at the medial acetabulum. Further, alpha and sagittal center-edge depend on algorithmic choices that may not mirror manual convention. We anticipate that continued enrollment and additional model training will be able to account for natural variability in bone shape. Fifth, the intra-rater assessment was performed for only 10 hips, although our data is similar to previous experience 3. Additional reads may change agreement statistics, although minor changes are expected given similar intrarater performance previously reported 3. Finally, the angles were evaluated without family-wise error control. In conclusion, this study validated a fully automated ZTE MRI pipeline that segments bone and fiducial landmarks and computes eight hip angles commonly used to evaluate patients with FAI and hip dysplasia. Model versus rater-mean agreement was excellent for acetabular versions 1â3, coronal center-edge, and Tönnis (ICC: 0.92â0.96), with BlandâAltman limits comparable to or narrower than interrater limits for most version and coverage angles. Alpha and femoral neck-shaft angle require cautious interpretation given fair model versus mean-rater and poor interrater reliability. This approach supports efficient, radiation-sparing, single-modality bone morphometric and soft tissue hip evaluation in hip-preservation patients. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the staff of the Hospital for Special Surgery Department of Radiology and Imaging for their assistance with scanning and acquisition of image data. The authors used Claude (Anthropic, San Francisco, CA), a large language model, to assist with editing and formatting of this manuscript; all scientific content, data analysis, interpretation of results, and conclusions are solely the work of the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the submitted work. Funding Statement The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Ethical Statement This study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB# 2015-441 and 2025-1851) and conducted in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Prospective participants enrolled with written informed consent. Retrospective participants were identified from clinically acquired pelvic MRI under a waiver of informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Data Sharing Statement Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author by request. Author Contributions Jack Consolini: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigator, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Statistical Analysis, Validation, Visualization, Writing â original draft, Writing â review and editing. Eric A. Bogner: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing â review and editing. Meghan Sahr: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing â review and editing. Matthew F. Koff: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing â review and editing. Kevin M. Koch: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing â review and editing. Hollis G. Potter: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing â review and editing. References M. Beck, M. Kalhor, M. Leunig, and R. Ganz (2005) Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87 (7), p. 1012â1018. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. J. M. Bland and D. G. Altman (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1 (8476), p. 307â310. Cited by: §2.6.3. R. E. Breighner, E. A. Bogner, S. C. Lee, M. F. Koff, and H. G. Potter (2019) Evaluation of Osseous Morphology of the Hip Using Zero Echo Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Am J Sports Med 47 (14), p. 3460â3468. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §1, §1, §2.1, §2.1, §2.2, §2.3, §4, §4. J. M. Bugeja, Y. Xia, S. S. Chandra, et al. (2022) Automated volumetric and statistical shape assessment of cam-type morphology of the femoral head-neck region from clinical 3D magnetic resonance images. Quant Imaging Med Surg 12 (10), p. 4924â4941. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §4. D. V. Cicchetti (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6 (4), p. 284â290. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.3. J. Cohen (2013) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition, Routledge. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1. M. E. Dancy, V. Oladipo, P. Boadi, et al. (2025) Femoroacetabular Impingement: Critical Analysis Review of Current Nonoperative Treatments. JBJS Rev 13 (4), p. e24.00211. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. N. P. Ewertowski, C. Schleich, D. B. Abrar, H. S. Hosalkar, and B. Bittersohl (2022) Automated measurement of alpha angle on 3D-magnetic resonance imaging in femoroacetabular impingement hips: a pilot study. J Orthop Surg 17 (1), p. 370. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §4, §4. D. M. Falgout, P. J. Bevan, R. C. Grumet, and K. C. Parvaresh (2023) Femoroacetabular Impingement Measurements Obtained From Two-Dimensional Radiographs Versus Three-Dimensional-Reconstructed Computed Tomography Images Result in Different Values. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 6 (1), p. 100833. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. S. D. Ferrell, S. X. Ramirez, S. B. Rosenfeld, P. X. Bawa, A. C. Sher, and J. H. Kan (2026) Does presence of hip dysplasia affect the prevalence and location of cam morphologies in pediatric hip pain patients?. Clin Imaging 131, p. 110731. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. S. L. Gold, A. J. Burge, and H. G. Potter (2012) MRI of hip cartilage: joint morphology, structure, and composition. Clin Orthop 470 (12), p. 3321â3331. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. J. Goronzy, S. Blum, A. Hartmann, et al. (2019) Is MRI an adequate replacement for CT scans in the three-dimensional assessment of acetabular morphology?. Acta Radiol 60 (6), p. 726â734. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §1. D. R. Griffin, E. J. Dickenson, J. OâDonnell, et al. (2016) The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 50 (19), p. 1169â1176. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. D. M. Grodzki, P. M. Jakob, and B. Heismann (2012) Ultrashort echo time imaging using pointwise encoding time reduction with radial acquisition (PETRA). Magn Reson Med 67 (2), p. 510â518. External Links: Document Cited by: §4. C. J. Guevara, R. Pietrobon, J. T. Carothers, S. A. Olson, and T. P. Vail (2006) Comprehensive morphologic evaluation of the hip in patients with symptomatic labral tear. Clin Orthop (453), p. 277â285. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. R. F. Hale, H. P. Melugin, J. Zhou, et al. (2021) Incidence of Femoroacetabular Impingement and Surgical Management Trends Over Time. Am J Sports Med 49 (1), p. 35â41. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. C. Y. W. Heimer, C. H. Wu, C. Perka, et al. (2022) The Impact of Hip Dysplasia on CAM Impingement. J Pers Med 12 (7), p. 1129. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. C. R. Henak, C. L. Abraham, A. E. Anderson, et al. (2014) Patient-specific analysis of cartilage and labrum mechanics in human hips with acetabular dysplasia. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22 (2), p. 210â217. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. K. L. Hermann and N. Egund (1997) CT measurement of anteversion in the femoral neck. The influence of femur positioning. Acta Radiol 38 (4), p. 527â532. External Links: Document Cited by: §4. F. Isensee, P. F. Jaeger, S. A. A. Kohl, J. Petersen, and K. H. Maier-Hein (2021) NnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat Methods 18 (2), p. 203â211. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.4.3. E. G. Koretsky, D. Singh, J. Consolini, et al. (2026) Deep learning-enhanced zero echo time MRI for femoral cortical bone quantification: A technical validation against CT. Magn Reson Imaging 133, p. 110748. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. A. E. Li, S. T. Jawetz, H. G. Greditzer, A. J. Burge, D. H. Nawabi, and H. G. Potter (2016a) MRI Evaluation of Femoroacetabular Impingement After Hip Preservation Surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207 (2), p. 392â400. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. A. E. Li, S. T. Jawetz, H. G. Greditzer, A. J. Burge, D. H. Nawabi, and H. G. Potter (2016b) MRI for the preoperative evaluation of femoroacetabular impingement. Insights Imaging 7 (2), p. 187â198. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §1. E. Liodakis, I. Doxastaki, K. Chu, et al. (2012) Reliability of the assessment of lower limb torsion using computed tomography: analysis of five different techniques. Skeletal Radiol 41 (3), p. 305â311. External Links: Document Cited by: §4. R. T. Loder and E. N. Skopelja (2011) The Epidemiology and Demographics of Hip Dysplasia. ISRN Orthop 2011, p. 238607. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. P. Lorenzon, A. Scalvi, and E. Scalco (2020) The Painful Hip in Young Adults Between Impingement and Mild Dysplasia: Clinical and Instrumental Diagnostical Criteria. Acta Bio Medica 91 (4-S), p. 11â20. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. B. C. Lowekamp, D. T. Chen, L. Ibåñez, and D. Blezek (2013) The Design of SimpleITK. Front Neuroinformatics 7, p. 45. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.5. H. P. Nötzli, T. F. Wyss, C. H. Stoecklin, M. R. Schmid, K. Treiber, and J. Hodler (2002) The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84 (4), p. 556â560. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §4. M. R. Nouh, M. E. Schweitzer, L. Rybak, and J. Cohen (2008) Femoroacetabular impingement: can the alpha angle be estimated?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190 (5), p. 1260â1262. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §4. M. J. Philippon, C. P. Ho, K. K. Briggs, J. Stull, and R. F. LaPrade (2013) Prevalence of increased alpha angles as a measure of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement in youth ice hockey players. Am J Sports Med 41 (6), p. 1357â1362. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. T. Sakai, T. Nishii, K. Sugamoto, H. Yoshikawa, and N. Sugano (2009) Is vertical-center-anterior angle equivalent to anterior coverage of the hip?. Clin Orthop 467 (11), p. 2865â2871. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. M. Sangeux, J. Pascoe, H. K. Graham, F. Ramanauskas, and T. Cain (2015) Three-dimensional measurement of femoral neck anteversion and neck shaft angle. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39 (1), p. 83â85. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §4. K. A. Siebenrock, F. Ferner, P. C. Noble, R. F. Santore, S. Werlen, and T. C. Mamisch (2011) The cam-type deformity of the proximal femur arises in childhood in response to vigorous sporting activity. Clin Orthop 469 (11), p. 3229â3240. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. K. M. Smith, B. J. Gerrie, P. C. McCulloch, D. M. Lintner, and J. D. Harris (2018) Comparison of MRI, CT, Dunn 45° and Dunn 90° alpha angle measurements in femoroacetabular impingement. Hip Int 28 (4), p. 450â455. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. M. Tannast, K. A. Siebenrock, and S. E. Anderson (2007) Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosisâwhat the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188 (6), p. 1540â1552. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. M. Tanzer and N. Noiseux (2004) Osseous Abnormalities and Early Osteoarthritis: The Role of Hip Impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res (429), p. 170. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §1. S. Tayyebinezhad, M. Fatehi, H. Arabalibeik, and H. Ghadiri (2025) Intelligent extraction of CT image landmarks for improving cam-type femoroacetabular impingement assessment. Eur Radiol. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, et al. (2020) SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods 17 (3), p. 261â272. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.5.1. Y. Xia, J. Fripp, S. S. Chandra, D. Walker, S. Crozier, and C. Engstrom (2015) Automated 3D quantitative assessment and measurement of alpha angles from the femoral head-neck junction using MR imaging. Phys Med Biol 60 (19), p. 7601â7616. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §4. A. K. YĂ©pez, M. Abreu, B. Germani, and C. R. Galia (2017) Prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic youth soccer players. Rev Bras Ortop 52 (Suppl 1), p. 14â20. External Links: Document Cited by: §1. P. A. Yushkevich, J. Piven, H. C. Hazlett, et al. (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability. NeuroImage 31 (3), p. 1116â1128. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.4.1. C. Zhang, L. Li, B. B. Forster, et al. (2015) Femoroacetabular impingement and osteoarthritis of the hip. Can Fam Physician 61 (12), p. 1055â1060. Cited by: §1.