Evaluation of Abdominal Obesity by a Portable Stereo Vision Body Imaging System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visceral fat stores in the abdomen are related to increased risk for insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease. This metabolically active fat depot is commonly measured via Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), although this method is costly and burdensome for subjects. The focus of this study was the evaluation of a portable body imaging system for analysis of abdominal obesity. Caucasian and Hispanic women fasted for 4 hours before measurement of anthropometrics, 8‐camera stereo vision body imaging, and MRI. Intraclass correlation coefficient of MRI for a subset of subjects showed strong agreement between two observers for labeling of visceral and subcutaneous fat with SliceOMatic version 4.3 (TomoVision, Magog, Quebec) (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 1.000 and 0.999 for subcutaneous and visceral fat, respectively, p<0.01). Stepwise linear regression analysis showed that girths at the thigh and umbilicus as measured by the portable body imaging system were strong predictors of visceral fat volume (Adjusted r 2 =0.709, p<0.01). This represented marked improvement over traditional manual prediction methods sagittal diameter and waist circumference by caliper and tape (Adjusted r 2 =0.651 and 0.531, respectively, p<0.01). These results indicate that the portable body imaging system is an effective means to evaluate central adiposity. Supported by NIH 1 R21 DK081206‐02.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".