Recurring Meeting of the Advisory Board

Date(s): November 19, 2015

Due to scheduling conflicts, the group meeting with the Advisory Board members were scheduled on an individual basis with each member. Please refer to Meeting Minutes for more details.

TableOfContents

Progress Report

Project Specific Aims

Project Infrastructure

Project Contact

Advisory Board

Progress Period

Development Team during Progress Period

See https://simtk.org/project/xml/team.xml?group_id=485 for full details on the project team.

Goals of Progress Period

Please also refer to previous meeting minutes of the Advisory Board at ["RecurringMeetings/2015-05-08"]. It should be noted that the timeline of activities has deviated from the original proposal, i.e., see the ["Roadmap"] and the proposed timeline of the proposal in attachment:GrantInformation/proposal.pdf.

Activities of Progress Period

Details of activities can be found in past meeting minutes of various teams at ["RecurringMeetings"].

Plans for Next Progress Period (November 20, 2015 - May 2016)

It should be noted that the timeline of activities has deviated from the original proposal, i.e., see the ["Roadmap"] and the proposed timeline of the proposal in attachment:GrantInformation/proposal.pdf.

Meeting Minutes

Date, Time, Means:

Attendees:

  1. Ahmet Erdemir (Cleveland Clinic)
  2. Jack Andrish (Cleveland Clinic)
  3. Morgan Jones (Cleveland Clinic)
  4. Paul Saluan (Cleveland Clinic)
  5. Trent Guess (University of Missouri)
  6. Rami Korhonen (University of Eastern Finland)

Agenda:

  1. Progress update, see progress report at:
  2. Recap of previous meeting minutes, see meeting minutes at:
  3. Action items for following meeting.
  4. Other.

Immediate Action Items:

See notes for details.

Notes:

  1. Due to scheduling conflicts, a series of meetings were conducted to inform the Advisory Board about Open Knee(s) activities and get feedback.
  2. Progress update.
    • Ahmet provided a summary of progress emphasizing the dissemination, summer internship program, and upcoming activities. An update on experimentation and modeling work was provided along with the progress of collaborators at the University of Utah and Stanford University. Published, submitted, and planned manuscripts were discussed. Discussions included many other topics, which were summarized in here.
    • Two sets of conference calls were arranged. First one included Rami Korhonen, Carl Winalski, and Paul Saluan:
      • Carl and Rami had a chance to meet and introduce themselves to each other. They have common connections through the Oulu research group.
      • Carl identified an MRI scoring strategy, referred as MOKS. This scoring will help evaluate and report health status of Open Knee(s) specimens particularly from the perspective of osteoarthritis and it will be part of a data publication. Carl will send a relevant manuscript on MOKS to Ahmet. Carl also mentioned other scoring techniques that may be used. He will check with his colleagues for selection of the scoring method. He mentioned that given the number of knee specimens (7 to 12), it may be possible to utilize multiple methods and report. The team needs to provide Carl, the MRIs of Open Knee(s) specimens. Carl can download these from a website or the team can give him a copy in an external harddrive. Carl mentioned that he can upload these images to a research PACS system where they can be accessed easily within the Cleveland Clinic by radiologists.
      • Ahmet, Rami, and Carl discussed the segmentation process. The group agreed that a fully automated segmentation, particularly for cartilage, is not necessarily possible. A reasonable path appears to be a semi-automatic system where manual corrections are done in a facilitated manner, e.g. through interactive tools. This is essentially the anticipated strategy by the Open Knee(s) team. Currently, Craig Bennetts, Open Knee(s) engineer, utilizes grow cut for automation of a gross initial segmentation followed by slice by slice manual corrections to delineate the tissue boundary appropriately. The process takes about half a day for a tissue segment. Rami's group has similar experience. Carl also mentioned a commonly used strategy to quantify variability of segmentation process when there is a lack of gold standard, i.e., multiple people segmenting and each segmentation compared to average.
      • Ahmet mentioned Carl and Rami that about 15 research groups used Open Knee(s) or its data for modeling and simulation. He mentioned that it may be interesting to compile the results from these studies to see if they are similar.
      • Rami and Ahmet talked about his student's (Petri Tanska) visit to Cleveland Clinic next summer. Petri will be a post-doc at that moment. Ideally, he will work on a project relevant to Rami's currently funded research activity, which is also synergistic with Ahmet's multiscale cartilage mechanics work. Nonetheless, Petri may be able to do some work relevant to Open Knee(s). Ahmet will send some ideas to Rami and in return, Rami will think about combining these to Petri's project.
      • Ahmet and Rami also talked about experimentation and modeling and simulation of muscle's influence on knee mechanics.

here.