MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333726263 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000238

Precision of the iDXA for Visceral Adipose Tissue Measurement in Severely Obese Patients

2014· article· en· W2333726263 on OpenAlexaff
Tamara E. Carver, Olivier Court, Nicolas V. Christou, Ryan E.R. Reid, Ross E. Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdipose tissueMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: A new measurement tool, the automated software CoreScan, for the GE Lunar iDXA, has been validated for measuring visceral adipose tissue (VAT) against computed tomography in normal-weight populations. However, no study has evaluated the precision of CoreScan in measuring VAT among severely obese patients. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the precision of CoreScan for VAT measurements in severely obese adults (body mass index > 40 kg·m(-2)). METHODS: A total of 55 obese participants with a mean age of 46 ± 11 yr, body mass index of 49 ± 6 kg·m(-2), and body mass of 137.3 ± 21.3 kg took part in this study. Two consecutive iDXA scans with repositioning of the total body were conducted for each participant. The coefficient of variation, the root-mean-square averages of SD of repeated measurements, the corresponding 95% least significant change, and intraclass correlations were calculated. RESULTS: Precision error was 8.77% (percent coefficient of variation), with a root-mean-square SD of 0.294 kg and an intraclass correlation of 0.96. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a mean precision bias of -0.08 ± 0.41 kg, giving a coefficient of repeatability of 0.82 kg and a bias range of -0.890 to 0.725 kg. CONCLUSIONS: When interpreting VAT results with the iDXA in severely obese populations, clinicians should be aware of the precision error for this important clinical parameter.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207