Computerized Automated Quantification of Subcutaneous and Visceral Adipose Tissue From Computed Tomography Scans: Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is often viewed as one of the most accurate methods for measuring visceral adipose tissue (VAT). However, measuring VAT and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) from CT is a time-consuming and tedious process. Thus, evaluating patients' obesity levels during clinical trials using CT scans is both cumbersome and limiting. OBJECTIVE: To describe an image-processing-based and automated method for measuring adipose tissue in the entire abdominal region. METHODS: The method detects SAT and VAT levels using a separation mask based on muscles of the human body. The separation mask is the region that minimizes the unnecessary space between a closed path and muscle area. In addition, a correction mask, based on bones, corrects the error in VAT. RESULTS: To validate the method, the volume of total adipose tissue (TAT), SAT, and VAT were measured for a total of 100 CTs using the automated method, and the results compared with those from manual measurements obtained by 2 experts. Dice's similarity coefficients (DSCs) between the first manual measurement and the automated result for TAT, SAT, and VAT are 0.99, 0.98, and 0.97, respectively. The DSCs between the second manual measurement and the automated result for TAT, SAT, and VAT are 0.98, 0.98, and 0.97, respectively. Moreover, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the automated method and the results of the manual measurements indicate high reliability as the ICCs for the items are all .99 (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results described in this paper confirm the accuracy and reliability of the proposed method. The method is expected to be both convenient and useful in the clinical evaluation and study of obesity in patients who require SAT and VAT measurements.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".