Why the study?
Hamstring strain injuries frequently cause missed play and reinjury, and evaluating their severity and location currently relies on clinician-graded semiqualitative scores to guide athlete recovery.
Does an automated AI model accurately segment and quantify hamstring musculotendon injury from MRI compared to ground-truth segmentations in collegiate football athletes?
Does an automated AI model accurately segment and quantify hamstring musculotendon injury from MRI compared to ground-truth segmentations in collegiate football athletes?
An automated AI model can accurately segment and quantify hamstring musculotendon injury from MRI, correlating well with ground truth and clinical injury severity grades.
AI grading of hamstring strains is feasible; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
In high-velocity sports, hamstring strain injuries are common causes of missed play and have high rates of reinjury. Evaluating the severity and location of a hamstring strain injury, currently graded by a clinician using a semiqualitative muscle injury classification score (e.g. as one method, British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification - BAMIC) to describe edema presence and location, aids in guiding athlete recovery. In this study, automated artificial intelligence (AI) models were developed and deployed to automatically segment edema, hamstring muscle and tendon structures using T2-weighted and T1-weighted magnetic resonance images (MRI), respectively. MR scans were collected from collegiate football athletes at time-of-hamstring injury and return to sport. Volume, length, and cross-sectional (CSA) measurements were performed on all structures and subregions (i.e. free tendon and aponeurosis). The edema and hamstring muscle/tendon AI models compared favorably with ground-truth segmentations. AI volumetric output correlated with ground truth for edema (R = 0.97), hamstring muscles (R ≥ 0.99), and hamstring tendon (R ≥ 0.42) structures. Edema volume and percentage of muscle impacted by edema significantly increased with clinical BAMIC grade (p < 0.05). Taken together, these results demonstrate a promising new approach for AI-based quantification of edema which reflects differing levels of injury severity and supports clinical validity. Main Body.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riem et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: