Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32007318›Full record

ArticleClinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020

Automated body composition analysis of clinically acquired computed tomography scans using neural networks.

Michael T Paris, Puneeta Tandon, Daren K Heyland, Helena Furberg, Tahira Premji, Gavin Low, Marina Mourtzakis

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  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. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Michael T ParisDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Puneeta TandonDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Daren K HeylandDepartment of Critical Care, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada; Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Helena FurbergDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Tahira PremjiDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Gavin LowDepartment of Radiology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Marina MourtzakisDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. Electronic address: mmourtzakis@uwaterloo.ca.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Body composition and the obesity paradox in clear cell renal cell carcinomaR01CA233885 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI FURBERG-BARNES, ANNA HELENA · 2019 to 2023
$3.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA233885
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsThe quantity and quality of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue is an important prognostic factor for clinical outcomes across several illnesses. Clinically acquired computed tomography (CT) scans are commonly used for quantification of body composition, but manual analysis is laborious and costly. The primary aim of this study was to develop an automated body composition analysis framework using CT scans.

methodsCT scans of the 3rd lumbar vertebrae from critically ill, liver cirrhosis, pancreatic cancer, and clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients, as well as renal and liver donors, were manually analyzed for body composition. Ninety percent of scans were used for developing and validating a neural network for the automated segmentation of skeletal muscle and adipose tissues. Network accuracy was evaluated with the remaining 10 percent of scans using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), which quantifies the overlap (0 = no overlap, 1 = perfect overlap) between human and automated segmentations.

resultsOf the 893 patients, 44% were female, with a mean (±SD) age and body mass index of 52.7 (±15.8) years old and 28.0 (±6.1) kg/m

conclusionsOur network displayed excellent ability to analyze diverse body composition phenotypes and clinical cohorts, which will create feasible opportunities to advance our capacity to predict health outcomes in clinical populations.

Indexed as

Body CompositionNeural Networks, ComputerRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdipose TissueAdiposityAdultAgedAutomationDeep LearningEuropeFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedAutomated body composition analysisComputed tomographyNeural networkSarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID32007318
PMCPMC7374050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.