ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2019
Reliability and validity of the new VikingSlice software for computed tomography body composition analysis.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- AutoLMISeg: A Fully Automated Pipeline for 3D Lumbar Muscle Volumetry and Densitometry on CT - Technical Validation Against an Operator-Driven Workflow.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Ethnic differences in CT derived abdominal body composition measures: a comparative retrospect pilot study between European and Inuit study population.International journal of circumpolar health · 2024Article
- Association between the Static and Dynamic Lung Function and CT-Derived Thoracic Skeletal Muscle Measurements-A Retrospective Analysis of a 12-Month Observational Follow-Up Pilot Study.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2024Observational
- Association between thoracic and third lumbar CT-derived muscle mass and density in Caucasian patients without chronic disease: a proof-of-concept study.European radiology experimental · 2023Observational
- Comparison of CT and Dixon MR Abdominal Adipose Tissue Quantification Using a Unified Computer-Assisted Software Framework.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Automated versus manual analysis of body composition measures on computed tomography in patients with bladder cancer.European journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a Fully Automatic Deep Learning-Based Method for the Measurement of Psoas Muscle Area.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Marrow uptake on FDG PET/CT is associated with progression from smoldering to symptomatic multiple myeloma.Skeletal radiology · 2021Article
- Analysis of the coaptation role of the deltoid in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. A preliminary biomechanical study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Cross-Sectional Area Measurement Techniques of Soft Tissue: A Literature Review.Orthopaedic surgery · 2020Review
- Evaluation of automated computed tomography segmentation to assess body composition and mortality associations in cancer patients.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2020Article
- Reproducibility of semiautomated body composition segmentation of abdominal computed tomography: a multiobserver study.European radiology experimental · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesBody composition assessment by computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used for diagnostic and prognostic purposes in various patient groups. This study aimed to compare the reliability and validity of a newly in-house developed segmentation software VikingSlice against a commercial software (SliceOMatic) for quantification of adipose tissue and skeletal muscle cross-sectional areas (CSA). SUBJECTS/
methodsFifty abdominal CT sets from chronic pancreatitis patients were analyzed (mean age 49, range 27-84 years; 38 males). Soft tissue CSAs at level of 4th lumbar vertebra were assessed by measuring standard Hounsfield unit threshold definitions with both softwares. Analysis with VikingSlice included automatic segmentation of interested region with subsequent manual corrections. Analysis with SliceOMatic included manual segmentation of each area. Same investigator measured CSAs using both programs. Inter-observer reliability of CSAs measurements with VikingSlice were assessed by comparing results from two independent investigators. Measurements were compared using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), Jaccard index and Bland-Altman analyses.
resultsThe inter-observer reliability of VikingSlice was excellent (CV 3.4-15.4%, ICC 0.979-0.999, Jaccard index 0.68-0.98). Validity was high (CV 1.6-10.2%, ICC 0.950-0.997) for measurements by SliceOmatic and VikingSlice. The findings were supported in the Bland-Altman plots. The reliability study had small average differences with means of soft tissue compartments in range -2.29 cm
conclusionsThe in-house developed software VikingSlice was fast and showed good reliability that is comparable with commercial software in its utility to estimate adipose tissue and skeletal muscle CSAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.