MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399104289 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-62431-2

Fully-automated CT derived body composition analysis reveals sarcopenia in functioning adrenocortical carcinomas

2024· article· en· W4399104289 on OpenAlexaff
Prasanna Santhanam, Roshan Dinparastisaleh, Karteek Popuri, Mirza Faisal Beg, Stanley M. Chen Cardenas, Amir H. Hamrahian

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaMedicineCancerFat distributionMuscle massInternal medicineBioinformaticsRadiologyBiologyBody mass index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determination of body composition (the relative distribution of fat, muscle, and bone) has been used effectively to assess the risk of progression and overall clinical outcomes in different malignancies. Sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass) is especially associated with poor clinical outcomes in cancer. However, estimation of muscle mass through CT scan has been a cumbersome, manually intensive process requiring accurate contouring through dedicated personnel hours. Recently, fully automated technologies that can determine body composition in minutes have been developed and shown to be highly accurate in determining muscle, bone, and fat mass. We employed a fully automated technology, and analyzed images from a publicly available cancer imaging archive dataset (TCIA) and a tertiary academic center. The results show that adrenocortical carcinomas (ACC) have relatively sarcopenia compared to benign adrenal lesions. In addition, functional ACCs have accelerated sarcopenia compared to non-functional ACCs. Further longitudinal research might shed further light on the relationship between body component distribution and ACC prognosis, which will help us incorporate more nutritional strategies in cancer therapy.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAdrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsFrench-language works237,207