Automatic Measurement of Human Subcutaneous Fat with Ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an approach to measure human subcutaneous fat thickness automatically using ultrasound radio frequency (RF) signals. We propose using spatially compounded spectrum properties extracted from the RF signals of ultrasound for the purpose of fat boundary detection. Our fat detection framework consists of 4 main steps. The first step is to capture RF data from 11 ultrasound beam angles and at 4 different focal positions. Second, spectrum dispersion is calculated from the local spectrum of RF data using the short-time Fourier transform and moment analysis. The values of the spectrum dispersion are encoded as gray-scale parametric images. Third, averaging is used to reduce speckle noise in the parametric image and improve the visualization of the subcutaneous fat layer. Finally, we apply Rosin's thresholding and random sample consensus boundary detection to extract the fat boundary. Our method was applied on 36 samples obtained in vivo at the suprailiac, thigh, and triceps of 9 human participants. In our study, high correlations between the manual and automatic ultrasound measurements (r > 0.7 at all body sites), and between the skinfold caliper and automatic ultrasound measurements (r > 0.7 at all body sites) were observed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".