Validation of volumetric and single‐slice MRI adipose analysis using a novel fully automated segmentation method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate a fully automated adipose segmentation method with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fat fraction abdominal imaging. We hypothesized that this method is suitable for segmentation of subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and intra-abdominal adipose tissue (IAAT) in a wide population range, easy to use, works with a variety of hardware setups, and is highly repeatable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis was performed comparing precision and analysis time of manual and automated segmentation of single-slice imaging, and volumetric imaging (78-88 slices). Volumetric and single-slice data were acquired in a variety of cohorts (body mass index [BMI] 15.6-41.76) including healthy adult volunteers, adolescent volunteers, and subjects with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and lipodystrophies. A subset of healthy volunteers was analyzed for repeatability in the measurements. RESULTS: The fully automated segmentation was found to have excellent agreement with manual segmentation with no substantial bias across all study cohorts. Repeatability tests showed a mean coefficient of variation of 1.2 ± 0.6% for SAT, and 2.7 ± 2.2% for IAAT. Analysis with automated segmentation was rapid, requiring 2 seconds per slice compared with 8 minutes per slice with manual segmentation. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the ability to accurately and rapidly segment regional adipose tissue using fat fraction maps across a wide population range, with varying hardware setups and acquisition methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".