MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Development of Fully Automated 3D Pectoralis Muscle Measurements on Computed Tomography Imaging for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Deep Learning

2025· article· en· W4410275654 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Genkin, Munira B. Verdawala, Wan C. Tan, Collins, J. Bourbeau, Michael K. Stickland, Dennis Jensen, Miranda Kirby

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary diseaseComputed tomographyRadiologyPectoralis major muscleTomographyAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: The pectoralis is commonly used as a surrogate for measuring muscle composition in computed tomography (CT) images in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Two-dimensional (2D) pectoralis muscle area (PMA) measurements at the aortic arch slice are associated with lung function and exercise capacity in COPD. However, single-slice measurements are prone to variations in anatomy and may not be representative of the 3D structure. Additionally, a highly accurate and externally validated, automated 3D pectoralis muscle volume (PMV) segmentation pipeline has yet to be developed. The objective of this study was to develop a deep-learning model to segment the PMV from chest CT images and compare the association between PMA and PMV measurements with lung function and exercise capacity in those with COPD. Methods: Participants with/without spirometrically-defined COPD and CT images from the multicenter Canadian Cohort of Obstructive Lung Disease study (NCT00920348) were included. A subset of participants were randomly sampled, with 8/9 sites acting as the development cohort (N=96 training; N=16 validation), and the last site serving as the internal testing cohort (N=32). COPD patients from the University of Alberta (NCT03679312) served as an external testing cohort (N=32). Ground-truth segmentations were manually segmented by an experienced image-analyst, and a 3D U-Net model was trained. Model performance was determined using the Dice-Sorensen Coefficient (DSC). For PMA measurements, the aortic arch was automatically detected using TotalSegmentator (10.1148/ryai.230024). Differences between the PMA (cm2) and PMV (cm3) measurements of no-COPD/COPD participants and associations with forced expiratory volume in 1-second (FEV1 (L)) and peak rate of oxygen consumption (V'O2peak (mL/kg/min)) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing were quantified using an ANCOVA and linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, height, BMI, center ID, and comorbidities. Results: 1325 participants had automated PMV segmentations (no-COPD (N=684): age=65.8±9.6yrs, 311(45.5%) females, FEV1=101±17%pred; COPD (N=641): age=67.3±10.1yrs, 243(37.9%) females, FEV1=82±19%pred). The trained model obtained a DSC of 0.94±0.02, 0.92±0.03, 0.92±0.03, and 0.92±0.04 on the training, validation, internal and external testing datasets, respectively. Compared to no-COPD participants, COPD participants had smaller PMA (34.7±11.6 vs. 37.0±10.7cm2; p<0.05) and PMV measurements (488.9±145.7 vs. 505.2±133.1cm3; p<0.05). PMV measurements showed stronger associations than PMA with FEV1 (Radj2=0.58 vs. 0.56, p<0.05) and V'O2peak (Radj2=0.57 vs. 0.55, p<0.05). Conclusions: PMV can be automatically extracted from CT images with high accuracy, quantify COPD-associated muscle atrophy, and outperforms PMA for associations with airflow obstruction and exercise intolerance. These findings support the use of PMV as a biomarker of obstructive lung-disease related muscle-loss.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicShoulder Injury and Treatment→French-language works237,207→