Automated segmentation of muscle and adipose tissue on CT images for human body composition analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to compute body composition in cancer patients lends itself to determining the specific clinical outcomes associated with fat and lean tissue stores. For example, a wasting syndrome of advanced disease associates with shortened survival. Moreover, certain tissue compartments represent sites for drug distribution and are likely determinants of chemotherapy efficacy and toxicity. CT images are abundant, but these cannot be fully exploited unless there exist practical and fast approaches for tissue quantification. Here we propose a fully automated method for segmenting muscle, visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissues, taking the approach of shape modeling for the analysis of skeletal muscle. Muscle shape is represented using PCA encoded Free Form Deformations with respect to a mean shape. The shape model is learned from manually segmented images and used in conjunction with a tissue appearance prior. VAT and SAT are segmented based on the final deformed muscle shape. In comparing the automatic and manual methods, coefficients of variation (COV) (1 - 2%), were similar to or smaller than inter- and intra-observer COVs reported for manual segmentation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".