Evaluation of two software programs for cross‐sectional body composition analysis on abdominal computed tomography scans of patients with cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of body composition abnormalities and clinical outcomes in patients with cirrhosis is well established. Abdominal computed tomography (CT) evaluation is the technique that is better evaluated; however, agreements are not well known. Fifty patients were randomly selected from two centers, and two observers independently evaluated their CT. The cross-sectional muscle area (CSMA), skeletal muscle index (SMI), muscle attenuation (MA), visceral adipose tissue area (VAT), visceral adipose tissue index (VATI), subcutaneous adipose tissue area (SAT), and subcutaneous adipose tissue area (SATI) were analyzed using SliceOmatic©V.5.0 (Magog, Canada), and Synapse 3D, Fujifilm. The interobserver and intersoftware intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were highly equivalent for CSMA, SMI, MA, VAT, VATI, SAT, and SATI (Range 0.984-0.999, P < 0.001), and excellent Pearson's correlation coefficients were found for all comparisons (Range 0.970-0.998). Using different software programs to evaluate body composition in patients with cirrhosis showed excellent agreement for measuring muscle mass and adipose depots.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".