MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414510721 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-17872-8

A potential bioelectrical impedance equation for estimating skeletal muscle area using computed tomography in colorectal cancer

2025· article· en· W4414510721 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda de Sousa Rebouças, Jarson Pedro da Costa Pereira, Rodrigo Albert Baracho Rüegg, Galtieri Otávio Cunha de Medeiros, Nithaela Alves Bennemann, Nilian Carla Souza, Sílvia Fernandes Maurício, Alcides da Silva Diniz, Marı́a Cristina González, Carla M. Prado, Ana Paula Trussardi Fayh

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBioelectrical impedance analysisMean squared errorBootstrapping (finance)Concordance correlation coefficientResamplingCorrelation coefficientLinear regressionComputed tomographyRegression analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) requires validated equations tailored to specific populations and devices to estimate body composition. In this study, we aimed to develop a predictive equation for BIA to evaluate skeletal muscle area (SMA) using computed tomography (CT) as the reference method. This is bi-center cross-sectional study, involving 211 patients. BIA was conducted using a tetrapolar model, measuring resistance (R), and reactance (Xc) values. The equation was developed using a linear regression model, maintaining variables that best correlate to SMA CT . Validity was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and bootstrapping resampling method. Lins’ concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated before and after resampling. The proposed equation included sex, age, weight, height, resistance and reactance. This model accounted for more than 85% of the variability in SMA CT (R 2 adjusted = 0.86), with a RMSE of 10.37 cm 2 and MAE of 8.28 cm 2 . SMA BIA was highly correlated with SMA CT (ρ = 0.93, P < .001). Bland-Altman plots and CCC (0.92) demonstrated a moderate agreement between SMA BIA and SMA CT . The newly proposed BIA equation demonstrated potential for predicting SMA CT as the reference standard. Our hypothesis requires further investigation in both healthy and clinical populations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207