Clinically Practical Approach for Screening of Low Muscularity Using Electronic Linear Measures on Computed Tomography Images in Critically Ill Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) scans performed during routine hospital care offer the opportunity to quantify skeletal muscle and predict mortality and morbidity in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Existing methods of muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) quantification require specialized software, training, and time commitment that may not be feasible in a clinical setting. In this article, we explore a new screening method to identify patients with low muscle mass. METHODS: We analyzed 145 scans of elderly ICU patients (≥65 years old) using a combination of measures obtained with a digital ruler, commonly found on hospital radiological software. The psoas and paraspinal muscle groups at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3) were evaluated by using 2 linear measures each and compared with an established method of CT image analysis of total muscle CSA in the L3 region. RESULTS: = 0.745, P < 0.001). Linear measures, age, and sex were included as covariates in a multiple logistic regression to predict those with low muscle mass; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) of the combined psoas and paraspinal linear index model was 0.920. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to evaluate intrarater and interrater reliability, resulting in scores of 0.979 (95% CI: 0.940-0.992) and 0.937 (95% CI: 0.828-0.978), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A digital ruler can reliably predict L3 muscle CSA, and these linear measures may be used to identify critically ill patients with low muscularity who are at risk for worse clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".