Predicting Waist Circumference From a Single Computed Tomography Image Using a Mobile App (Measure It): Development and Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the existing evidence that waist circumference (WC) provides independent and additive information to BMI when predicting morbidity and mortality, this measurement is not routinely obtained in clinical practice. Using computed tomography (CT) scan images, mobile health (mHealth) has the potential to make this abdominal obesity parameter easily available even in retrospective studies. Objective: This study aimed to develop a mobile app as a tool for facilitating the measurement of WC based on a cross-sectional CT image. Methods: The development process included three stages: determination of the principles of WC measurement from CT images, app prototype design, and validation. We performed a preliminary validity study in which we compared WC measurements obtained both by the conventional method using a tape measurement in a standing position and by the mobile app using the last abdominal CT slice not showing the iliac bone. Pearson correlation, student t tests, and Q-Q and Bland-Altman plots were used for statistical analysis. Moreover, to perform a diagnostic test evaluation, we also analyzed the accuracy of the app in detecting abdominal obesity. Results: We developed a prototype of the app Measure It, which is capable of estimating WC from a single cross-sectional CT image. We used an estimation based on an ellipse formula adjusted to the gender of the patient. The validity study included 20 patients (10 men and 10 women). There was a good correlation between both measurements (Pearson R=0.906). The student t test showed no significant differences between the two measurements (P=.98). Both the Q-Q dispersion plot and Bland-Altman analysis graphs showed good overlap with some dispersion of extreme values. The diagnostic test evaluation showed an accuracy of 83% when using the mobile app to detect abdominal obesity. Conclusions: This app is a simple and accessible mHealth tool to routinely measure WC as a valuable obesity indicator in clinical and research practice. A usability and validity evaluation among medical teams will be the next step before its use in clinical trials and multicentric studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".