Evaluation of a fully automated computed tomography image segmentation method for fast and accurate body composition measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".