A fully automated pipeline for the extraction of pectoralis muscle area from chest computed tomography scans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Computed tomography (CT)-derived pectoralis muscle area (PMA) measurements are prognostic in people with or at-risk of COPD, but fully automated PMA extraction has yet to be developed. Our objective was to develop and validate a PMA extraction pipeline that can automatically: 1) identify the aortic arch slice; and 2) perform pectoralis segmentation at that slice. Methods CT images from the Canadian Cohort of Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study were used for pipeline development. Aorta atlases were used to automatically identify the slice containing the aortic arch by group-based registration. A deep learning model was trained to segment the PMA. The pipeline was evaluated in comparison to manual segmentation. An external dataset was used to evaluate generalisability. Model performance was assessed using the Dice–Sorensen coefficient (DSC) and PMA error. Results In total 90 participants were used for training (age 67.0±9.9 years; forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) 93±21% predicted; FEV 1 /forced vital capacity (FVC) 0.69±0.10; 47 men), and 32 for external testing (age 68.6±7.4 years; FEV 1 65±17% predicted; FEV 1 /FVC 0.50±0.09; 16 men). Compared with manual segmentation, the deep learning model achieved a DSC of 0.94±0.02, 0.94±0.01 and 0.90±0.04 on the true aortic arch slice in the train, validation and external test sets, respectively. Automated aortic arch slice detection obtained distance errors of 1.2±1.3 mm and 1.6±1.5 mm on the train and test data, respectively. Fully automated PMA measurements were not different from manual segmentation (p>0.05). PMA measurements were different between people with and without COPD (p=0.01) and correlated with FEV 1 % predicted (p<0.05). Conclusion A fully automated CT PMA extraction pipeline was developed and validated for use in research and clinical practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".