MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294219396 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.13080

Body composition from single versus multi‐slice abdominal computed tomography: Concordance and associations with colorectal cancer survival

2022· article· en· W4294219396 on OpenAlex
Ijeamaka Anyene, Bette J. Caan, Grant R. Williams, Karteek Popuri, Leon Lenchik, Smith Giri, Vincent Chow, Mirza Faisal Beg, Elizabeth M. Cespedes Feliciano

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceColorectal cancerHazard ratioAdipose tissueConcordance correlation coefficientNuclear medicineCancerConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Computed tomography (CT) scans are routinely obtained in oncology and provide measures of muscle and adipose tissue predictive of morbidity and mortality. Automated segmentation of CT has advanced past single slices to multi‐slice measurements, but the concordance of these approaches and their associations with mortality after cancer diagnosis have not been compared. Methods A total of 2871 patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed during 2012–2017 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California underwent abdominal CT scans as part of routine clinical care from which mid‐L3 cross‐sectional areas and multi‐slice T12–L5 volumes of skeletal muscle (SKM), subcutaneous adipose (SAT), visceral adipose (VAT) and intermuscular adipose (IMAT) tissues were assessed using Data Analysis Facilitation Suite, an automated multi‐slice segmentation platform. To facilitate comparison between single‐slice and multi‐slice measurements, sex‐specific z‐scores were calculated. Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman analysis were used to quantify agreement. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for death adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, height, and tumour site and stage. Results Single‐slice area and multi‐slice abdominal volumes were highly correlated for all tissues (SKM R = 0.92, P < 0.001; SAT R = 0.97, P < 0.001; VAT R = 0.98, P < 0.001; IMAT R = 0.89, P < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots had a bias of 0 (SE: 0.00), indicating high average agreement between measures. The limits of agreement were narrowest for VAT ( 0.42 SD) and SAT ( 0.44 SD), and widest for SKM ( 0.78 SD) and IMAT ( 0.92 SD). The HRs had overlapping CIs, and similar magnitudes and direction of effects; for example, a 1‐SD increase in SKM area was associated with an 18% decreased risk of death (HR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72–0.92), versus 15% for volume from T12 to L5 (HR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75–0.96). Conclusions Single‐slice L3 areas and multi‐slice T12–L5 abdominal volumes of SKM, VAT, SAT and IMAT are highly correlated. Associations between area and volume measures with all‐cause mortality were similar, suggesting that they are equivalent tools for population studies if body composition is assessed at a single timepoint. Future research should examine longitudinal changes in multi‐slice tissues to improve individual risk prediction.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.278 · 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