<p>Supplementary Table 1: Monthly quality assurance process, and test-retest reliability studies of Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) pilot imaging data (cartilage segmentation)</p><p>Authors Imaging Method Analysis Type n = Knees / Key Results Participants Schneider et al.S7 Various Test-retest phantoms Good stability of geometrics measures over time OAI sequences High consistency of geometrics measures across the sites RMS CoV% = 0.04% for diameter measures RMS CoV% = 0.56% for length measures RMS CoV% = 0.46% for spherical volume measures RMS CoV% =2.3 to 18.8% for T2 relaxation times Eckstein et al.S4 cor FLASH Non-paired test/ 19/19 Femorotibial joint: cor MPR DESS retest analysis; RMS CoV% = 3.0-6.4% with coronal FLASH sag DESS cartilage volume RMS CoV% = 2.4-6.2% with coronal MPR DESS RMS CoV% = 2.3-8.2% with sagittal DESS Correlation of DESS vs FLASH r = 0.88 to 1.0 Femoropatellar joint: RMS CoV% = 3.4-8.5% with sagittal DESS</p><p>Eckstein et al.S5 cor FLASH Paired test /retest 19/19 RMS CoV% ≤ 2.6/2.3% (FLASH/MPR DESS) quadrature coil cor MPR DESS analysis cartilage RMS CoV% ≤ 2.3/2.5 % (FLASH/MPR DESS) phase array coil volume / thickness; statistically significant differences between coils coil comparison greater precision for compartment vs. plate measures</p><p>Brem et al.S1 sag DESS Paired test /retest 12/12 RMS CoV% ≤ 1.2% for cartilage volume analysis cartilage RMS CoV% ≤ 1.5% for cartilage thickness volume / thickness Eckstein et al.S6 cor FLASH Paired test/retest 9/9 RMS CoV% = 1.8%; 2y loss = -1.7% (cor FLASH) cor MPR DESS analysis and two-year RMS CoV% = 3.0%; 2y loss = -0.3% (cor MPR DESS) sag DESS sensitivity to change RMS CoV% = 2.6%; 2y loss = -2.8% (sag DESS)</p><p>Tamez et al.S8 sag DESS Paired test/retest RMS CoV% = 0.6%-1.6% for cartilage thickness and two-year change RMS CoV% = 3.6%-11.7% for bone curvature analysis ICC for reproducibility of change 0.00-0.87 cor = coronal; FLASH = fast low angle shotsequence (= SPGR = spoiled gradient recalled); MPR = multiplanar reconstruction; sag = sagittal; DESS = double echo steady state sequence with water excitation; RMS CoV% = root mean square coefficient of variation; Please note that the OAI pilot studies built on previous work comparing cartilage volume and thickness measurements obtained from 3 Tesla MRI with that obtained from 1.5 Tesla MRI S2, with 1.5 Tesla MRI having been previously validated versus external reference methodology S3</p><p>Supplementary Reference List</p><p>S1. M. H. Brem, et al., "Magnetic resonance image segmentation using semi-automated software for quantification of knee articular cartilage---initial evaluation of a technique for paired scans," Skeletal Radiol. 38(5), 505 (2009).</p><p>S2. F. Eckstein, et al., "Accuracy and precision of quantitative assessment of cartilage morphology by magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T," Arthritis Rheum. 52(10), 3132 (2005).</p><p>S3. F. Eckstein, et al., "Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of articular cartilage in knee osteoarthritis (OA): morphological assessment," Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 14 Suppl 1: 46 (2006).</p><p>S4. F. Eckstein, et al., "Double echo steady state magnetic resonance imaging of knee articular cartilage at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the Osteoarthritis Initiative," Ann. Rheum Dis. 65(4), 433 (2006).</p><p>S5. F. Eckstein, et al., "Impact of coil design on the contrast-to-noise ratio, precision, and consistency of quantitative cartilage morphometry at 3 Tesla: a pilot study for the osteoarthritis initiative," Magn Reson Med. 57(2), 448 (2007). S6. F. Eckstein, et al., "Two year longitudinal change and test-retest-precision of knee cartilage morphology in a pilot study for the osteoarthritis initiative," Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 15(11), 1326 (2007).</p><p>S7. E. Schneider, et al., "The osteoarthritis initiative (OAI) magnetic resonance imaging quality assurance methods and results," Osteoarthritis. Cartilage. 16(9), 994 (2008).</p><p>S8. J. G. Tamez-Pena, et al., "Unsupervised segmentation and quantification of anatomical knee features: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative," IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng 59(4), 1177 (2012).</p>