Reliability of ultrasound measurements of muscle thickness and echointensity in older adults with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrasound is an emerging tool for muscle-based measurements. However, the analysis of hyperechoic images (high muscle fat infiltration, as in type 2 diabetes [T2D]) can be challenging. To evaluate the reliability of ultrasound image analysis of muscle thickness and echointensity in older adults with T2D and non-diabetic controls by experienced and novice analysts. We hypothesized that reliability would be high for the experienced analysts, and lower, but acceptable, for a novice analyst. We recruited three groups: 1) adults >60 years with T2D; 2) age- and sex-matched normoglycemic controls; and 3) healthy adults 18–35 years. All participants underwent ultrasound imaging of the abdomen and anterior thigh. Ultrasound images were de-identified, randomized, and separately analyzed by two expert analysts (>3 years experience each). A subset of images was also analyzed by a novice analyst with no prior experience. Inter- and intra-rater reliability was assessed using coefficients of variation (CVs), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman analysis. For the expert analysts, ICCs were >0.90 and CVs were <10 % for all measurements, regardless of participant group. For the novice analyst, all ICCs were >0.90, except for rectus abdominus thickness measurements in the T2D group (ICC: 0.659 [95%CI: -0.134, 0.911]). CVs were <10 % for all measurements, except for rectus abdominus thickness in the T2D group (CV: 12.7 %). Ultrasound image analysis of muscle thickness and echointensity by experienced analysts was highly reliable. Novice and expert analysts produced comparable measurements, except for rectus abdominus thickness in images obtained from older adults with T2D.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".