Body Composition Analysis of Computed Tomography Scans in Clinical Populations: The Role of Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body composition is increasingly being recognized as an important prognostic factor for health outcomes across cancer, liver cirrhosis, and critically ill patients. Computed tomography (CT) scans, when taken as part of routine care, provide an excellent opportunity to precisely measure the quantity and quality of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue. However, manual analysis of CT scans is costly and time-intensive, limiting the widespread adoption of CT-based measurements of body composition. SUMMARY: Advances in deep learning have demonstrated excellent success in biomedical image analysis. Several recent publications have demonstrated excellent accuracy in comparison to human raters for the measurement of skeletal muscle, visceral adipose, and subcutaneous adipose tissue from the lumbar vertebrae region, indicating that analysis of body composition may be successfully automated using deep neural networks. Key Messages: The high accuracy and drastically improved speed of CT body composition analysis (<1 s/scan for neural networks vs. 15 min/scan for human analysis) suggest that neural networks may aid researchers and clinicians in better understanding the role of body composition in clinical populations by enabling cost-effective, large-scale research studies. As the role of body composition in clinical settings and the field of automated analysis advance, it will be critical to examine how clinicians interact with these systems and to evaluate whether these technologies are beneficial in improving treatment and health outcomes for patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".