MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069819237 · doi:10.1117/12.812412

Automated segmentation of muscle and adipose tissue on CT images for human body composition analysis

2009· article· en· W2069819237 on OpenAlexaff
Howard Chung, Dana Cobzaş, Laura Birdsell, Jessica Lieffers, Vickie E. Baracos

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdipose tissueComputer scienceSegmentationImage segmentationMuscle tissueArtificial intelligenceSubcutaneous adipose tissuePattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionAnatomyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207