Use of prediction equations to determine the accuracy of whole-body fat and fat-free mass and appendicular skeletal muscle mass measurements from a single abdominal image using computed tomography in advanced cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurements of body composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and single abdominal images from computed tomography (CT) in advanced cancer patients (ACP) have important diagnostic and prognostic value. The question arises as to whether CT scans can serve as surrogates for DXA in terms of whole-body fat-free mass (FFM), whole-body fat mass (FM), and appendicular skeletal muscle (ASM) mass. Predictive equations to estimate body composition for ACP from CT images have been proposed (Mourtzakis et al. 2008; Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metabol. 33(5): 997-1006); however, these equations have yet to be validated in an independent cohort of ACP. Thus, this study evaluated the accuracy of these equations in estimating FFM, FM, and ASM mass using CT images at the level of the third lumbar vertebrae and compared these values with DXA measurements. FFM, FM, and ASM mass were estimated from the prediction equations proposed by Mourtzakis and colleagues (2008) using single abdominal CT images from 43 ACP and were compared with whole-body DXA scans using Spearman correlations and Bland-Altman analyses. Despite a moderate to high correlation between the actual (DXA) and predicted (CT) values for FM (rho = 0.93; p ≤ 0.001), FFM (rho = 0.78; p ≤ 0.001), and ASM mass (rho = 0.70; p ≤ 0.001), Bland-Altman analyses revealed large range-of-agreement differences between the 2 methods (29.39 kg for FFM, 15.47 kg for FM, and 3.99 kg for ASM mass). Based on the magnitude of these differences, we concluded that prediction equations using single abdominal CT images have poor accuracy, cannot be considered as surrogates for DXA, and may have limited clinical utility.
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 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".