Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31145342›Full record

ArticleMedicine2019

Semiautomatic software for measurement of abdominal muscle and adipose areas using computed tomography: A STROBE-compliant article.

Seung Soo Kim, Jae-Hun Kim, Woo Kyoung Jeong, Jisun Lee, Young Kon Kim, Dongil Choi, Won Jae Lee

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Seung Soo KimDepartment of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul.
Jae-Hun KimDepartment of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul.
Woo Kyoung JeongDepartment of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul.
Jisun LeeDepartment of Radiology, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju-si, Korea.
Young Kon KimDepartment of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul.
Dongil ChoiDepartment of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul.
Won Jae LeeDepartment of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the study was to introduce our in-house software to measure the muscle and adipose area on axial computed tomography (CT) scans and to compare with various quantification methods.Our institutional review board approved this retrospective study and informed consent was waived. We developed in-house software to identify body composition analysis on CT scan, which semiautomatically operates 3 image processing steps. Abdominal images were obtained using multidetector row CT (MDCT). Two radiologists analyzed the same cross-sectional areas of subcutaneous fat, muscle, and visceral fat using the following techniques: manual measurements, Aquarius, ImageJ, and our newly developed software. We calculated an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for comparison of muscle and fat areas quantified by various measurement methods using a 2-way random model. Interobserver agreement between the radiologists was also evaluated.Agreements in the measurement of subcutaneous fat and muscle areas were excellent among the methods (ICC = 0.962 and 0.897, respectively), and that of the visceral fat area was good (ICC = 0.822). In the subgroup analysis, ICC of the visceral fat area in the female group and in subjects with ascites was slightly lower than the other group (ICC = 0.742 and 0.787, respectively). The correlation coefficients between our software and other methods were relatively high (r = 0.854-0.996). Additionally, ICCs between both observers of our program for quantification of subcutaneous fat, muscle, and visceral fat areas were 0.999, 0.980, and 0.999, respectively.In conclusion, our method showed be reliable in quantifying muscle and adipose tissue using cross-sectional areas of MDCT with high reproducibility.

Indexed as

SoftwareAbdominal FatAbdominal MusclesAdipose TissueAdultAgedFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIntra-Abdominal FatMaleMiddle AgedMultidetector Computed TomographyObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31145342
PMCPMC6708812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.