Ultrasound estimates of muscle quality in older adults: reliability and comparison of Photoshop and ImageJ for the grayscale analysis of muscle echogenicity
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background. Quantitative diagnostic ultrasound imaging has been proposed as a method of estimating muscle quality using measures of echogenicity. The Rectangular Marquee Tool (RMT) and the Free Hand Tool (FHT) are two types of editing features used in Photoshop and ImageJ for determining a region of interest (ROI) within an ultrasound image. The primary objective of this study is to determine the intrarater and interrater reliability of Photoshop and ImageJ for the estimate of muscle tissue echogenicity in older adults via grayscale histogram analysis. The secondary objective is to compare the mean grayscale values obtained using both the RMT and FHT methods across both image analysis platforms. Methods. This cross-sectional observational study features 18 community-dwelling men (age = 61.5 ± 2.32 years). Longitudinal views of the rectus femoris were captured using B-mode ultrasound. The ROI for each scan was selected by 2 examiners using the RMT and FHT methods from each software program. Their reliability is assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the standard error of the measurement (SEM). Measurement agreement for these values is depicted using Bland-Altman plots. A paired t-test is used to determine mean differences in echogenicity expressed as grayscale values using the RMT and FHT methods to select the post-image acquisition ROI. The degree of association among ROI selection methods and image analysis platforms is analyzed using the coefficient of determination (R (2)). Results. The raters demonstrated excellent intrarater and interrater reliability using the RMT and FHT methods across both platforms (lower bound 95% CI ICC = .97-.99, p < .001). Mean differences between the echogenicity estimates obtained with the RMT and FHT methods was .87 grayscale levels (95% CI [.54-1.21], p < .0001) using data obtained with both programs. The SEM for Photoshop was .97 and 1.05 grayscale levels when using the RMT and FHT ROI selection methods, respectively. Comparatively, the SEM values were .72 and .81 grayscale levels, respectively, when using the RMT and FHT ROI selection methods in ImageJ. Uniform coefficients of determination (R (2) = .96-.99, p < .001) indicate strong positive associations among the grayscale histogram analysis measurement conditions independent of the ROI selection methods and imaging platform. Conclusion. Our method for evaluating muscle echogenicity demonstrated a high degree of intrarater and interrater reliability using both the RMT and FHT methods across 2 common image analysis platforms. The minimal measurement error exhibited by the examiners demonstrates that the ROI selection methods used with Photoshop and ImageJ are suitable for the post-acquisition image analysis of tissue echogenicity in older adults.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle