A potential bioelectrical impedance equation for estimating skeletal muscle area using computed tomography in colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".