MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073741170

Measuring Abdominal Circumference and Skeletal Muscle From a Single Cross-Sectional Computed Tomography Image: A Step-by-Step Guide for Clinicians Using National Institutes of Health ImageJ.

2016· article· en· W7073741170 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCleveland Clinic FoundationNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of AlbertaCleveland Clinic
KeywordsSupine positionWaistSarcopeniaCircumferenceAbdominal computed tomographyComputed tomographyAbdomenTomography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scans provide numerous opportunities for body composition analysis, including quantification of abdominal circumference, abdominal adipose tissues (subcutaneous, visceral, and intermuscular), and skeletal muscle (SM). CT scans are commonly performed for diagnostic purposes in clinical settings, and methods for estimating abdominal circumference and whole-body SM mass from them have been reported. A supine abdominal circumference is a valid measure of waist circumference (WC). The valid correlation between a single cross-sectional CT image (slice) at third lumbar (L3) for abdominal SM and whole-body SM is also well established. Sarcopenia refers to the age-associated decreased in muscle mass and function. A single dimensional definition of sarcopenia using CT images that includes only assessment of low whole-body SM has been validated in clinical populations and significantly associated with negative outcomes. However, despite the availability and precision of SM data from CT scans and the relationship between these measurements and clinical outcomes, they have not become a routine component of clinical nutrition assessment. Lack of time, training, and expense are potential barriers that prevent clinicians from fully embracing this technique. This tutorial presents a systematic, step-by-step guide to quickly quantify abdominal circumference as a proxy for WC and SM using a cross-sectional CT image from a regional diagnostic CT scan for clinical identification of sarcopenia. Multiple software options are available, but this tutorial uses ImageJ, a free public-domain software developed by the National Institutes of Health.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1150.096

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.116 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207