MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403117574 · doi:10.1016/j.nut.2024.112592

Evaluation of a fully automated computed tomography image segmentation method for fast and accurate body composition measurements

2024· article· en· W4403117574 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle V. Dietz, Karteek Popuri, Mushfiqus Salehin, Da Ma, Vincent Chow, Hyunwoo Lee, Cornelis Verhoef, Eva V. E. Madsen, Mirza Faisal Beg, Jeroen L.A. van Vugt

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputed tomographySegmentationComposition (language)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceTomographyImage segmentationImage (mathematics)Computer scienceNuclear medicineRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Body composition evaluation can be used to assess patients' nutritional status to predict clinical outcomes. To facilitate reliable and time-efficient body composition measurements eligible for clinical practice, fully automated computed tomography segmentation methods were developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate automated segmentation by Data Analysis Facilitation Suite in an independent dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative computed tomography images were used of 165 patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy from 2014 to 2019. Manual and automated measurements of skeletal muscle mass (SMM), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and intramuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) were performed at the third lumbar vertebra. Segmentation accuracy of automated measurements was assessed using the Jaccard index and intra-class correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Automatic segmentation provided accurate measurements compared to manual analysis, resulting in Jaccard score coefficients of 94.9 for SMM, 98.4 for VAT, 99.1 for SAT, and 79.4 for IMAT. Intra-class correlation coefficients ranged from 0.98 to 1.00. Automated measurements on average overestimated SMM and SAT areas compared to manual analysis, with mean differences (±2 standard deviations) of 1.10 (-1.91 to 4.11) and 1.61 (-2.26 to 5.48) respectively. For VAT and IMAT, automated measurements on average underestimated the areas with mean differences of -1.24 (-3.35 to 0.87) and -0.93 (-5.20 to 3.35), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available Data Analysis Facilitation Suite provides similar results compared to manual measurements of body composition at the level of third lumbar vertebra. This software provides accurate and time-efficient body composition measurements, which is necessary for implementation in 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutritionSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207