Development of Formulas for Calculating L3 Skeletal Muscle Mass Index and Visceral Fat Area Based on Anthropometric Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The anthropometric index is not accurate but shows a great advantage in accessibility. Simple body composition formulas should be investigated before proceeding with the universal nutrition screening. Materials and Methods Clinical data of patients with a malignant tumor of the digestive system were collected. SliceOmatic 5.0 software (TOMOVISION, Canada) was used to analyze abdominal CT images and taken as references. A linear regression analysis was adopted to establish the formula for calculating skeletal muscle index (SMI) and visceral fat area (VFA). In addition, the relweights function was adopted to measure the contribution of each variable. Results In total, 344 patients were divided into the training set and 134 patients into the validation set. The selected formulas were SMI.pre = 0.540 × weight (kg) – 0.559 × height (cm) – 13.877 × sex (male = 1, female = 2) + 123.583, and VFA.pre = 5.146 × weight (kg) – 2.666 × height (cm) + 1.436 × age (year) + 134.096, of which the adjusted R 2 were 0.597 and 0.581, respectively. The “weight” explained more than 80% of R 2 in the prediction of VFA. In addition, “sex” occupied approximately 40% of R 2 in the prediction of SMI. The paired t -test showed no significant difference between the real measured indices and the predicting ones ( p = 0.123 for SMI and p = 0.299 for VFA). The logistic regression analysis exhibited similar diagnostic efficacy of the real measured parameters and formulas. Conclusion The SMI and VFA formulas were developed through basic indices, such as weight, height, sex, and age. According to the contribution of each variable, weight should always be focused on preserving appropriate muscle and adipose tissue.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".