A systematic review of automated segmentation of 3D computed‐tomography scans for volumetric body composition analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated computed tomography (CT) scan segmentation (labelling of pixels according to tissue type) is now possible. This technique is being adapted to achieve three-dimensional (3D) segmentation of CT scans, opposed to single L3-slice alone. This systematic review evaluates feasibility and accuracy of automated segmentation of 3D CT scans for volumetric body composition (BC) analysis, as well as current limitations and pitfalls clinicians and researchers should be aware of. OVID Medline, Embase and grey literature databases up to October 2021 were searched. Original studies investigating automated skeletal muscle, visceral and subcutaneous AT segmentation from CT were included. Seven of the 92 studies met inclusion criteria. Variation existed in expertise and numbers of humans performing ground-truth segmentations used to train algorithms. There was heterogeneity in patient characteristics, pathology and CT phases that segmentation algorithms were developed upon. Reporting of anatomical CT coverage varied, with confusing terminology. Six studies covered volumetric regional slabs rather than the whole body. One study stated the use of whole-body CT, but it was not clear whether this truly meant head-to-fingertip-to-toe. Two studies used conventional computer algorithms. The latter five used deep learning (DL), an artificial intelligence technique where algorithms are similarly organized to brain neuronal pathways. Six of seven reported excellent segmentation performance (Dice similarity coefficients > 0.9 per tissue). Internal testing on unseen scans was performed for only four of seven algorithms, whilst only three were tested externally. Trained DL algorithms achieved full CT segmentation in 12 to 75 s versus 25 min for non-DL techniques. DL enables opportunistic, rapid and automated volumetric BC analysis of CT performed for clinical indications. However, most CT scans do not cover head-to-fingertip-to-toe; further research must validate using common CT regions to estimate true whole-body BC, with direct comparison to single lumbar slice. Due to successes of DL, we expect progressive numbers of algorithms to materialize in addition to the seven discussed in this paper. Researchers and clinicians in the field of BC must therefore be aware of pitfalls. High Dice similarity coefficients do not inform the degree to which BC tissues may be under- or overestimated and nor does it inform on algorithm precision. Consensus is needed to define accuracy and precision standards for ground-truth labelling. Creation of a large international, multicentre common CT dataset with BC ground-truth labels from multiple experts could be a robust solution.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".