Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34026597›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

A Deep Learning Model to Automate Skeletal Muscle Area Measurement on Computed Tomography Images.

Kaushalya C Amarasinghe, Jamie Lopes, Julian Beraldo, Nicole Kiss, Nicholas Bucknell, Sarah Everitt, Price Jackson, Cassandra Litchfield, Linda Denehy, Benjamin J Blyth and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Deep-learning pipeline for automated skeletal muscle segmentation and sarcopenia detection.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026
    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. Review
  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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaushalya C AmarasingheBioinformatics Core Facility, Cancer Research Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jamie LopesCancer Research Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Julian BeraldoRadiation Therapy, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Nicole KissInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Nicholas BucknellSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Sarah EverittSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Price JacksonSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Cassandra LitchfieldBioinformatics Core Facility, Cancer Research Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Linda DenehyAllied Health Department, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Benjamin J BlythCancer Research Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Shankar SivaSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Michael MacManusSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
David BallSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Jason LiBioinformatics Core Facility, Cancer Research Division, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Nicholas HardcastlePhysical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMuscle wasting (Sarcopenia) is associated with poor outcomes in cancer patients. Early identification of sarcopenia can facilitate nutritional and exercise intervention. Cross-sectional skeletal muscle (SM) area at the third lumbar vertebra (L3) slice of a computed tomography (CT) image is increasingly used to assess body composition and calculate SM index (SMI), a validated surrogate marker for sarcopenia in cancer. Manual segmentation of SM requires multiple steps, which limits use in routine clinical practice. This project aims to develop an automatic method to segment L3 muscle in CT scans.

methodsAttenuation correction CTs from full body PET-CT scans from patients enrolled in two prospective trials were used. The training set consisted of 66 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who underwent curative intent radiotherapy. An additional 42 NSCLC patients prescribed curative intent chemo-radiotherapy from a second trial were used for testing. Each patient had multiple CT scans taken at different time points prior to and post- treatment (147 CTs in the training and validation set and 116 CTs in the independent testing set). Skeletal muscle at L3 vertebra was manually segmented by two observers, according to the Alberta protocol to serve as ground truth labels. This included 40 images segmented by both observers to measure inter-observer variation. An ensemble of 2.5D fully convolutional neural networks (U-Nets) was used to perform the segmentation. The final layer of U-Net produced the binary classification of the pixels into muscle and non-muscle area. The model performance was calculated using Dice score and absolute percentage error (APE) in skeletal muscle area between manual and automated contours.

resultsWe trained five 2.5D U-Nets using 5-fold cross validation and used them to predict the contours in the testing set. The model achieved a mean Dice score of 0.92 and an APE of 3.1% on the independent testing set. This was similar to inter-observer variation of 0.96 and 2.9% for mean Dice and APE respectively. We further quantified the performance of sarcopenia classification using computer generated skeletal muscle area. To meet a clinical diagnosis of sarcopenia based on Alberta protocol the model achieved a sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 95%.

conclusionsThis work demonstrates an automated method for accurate and reproducible segmentation of skeletal muscle area at L3. This is an efficient tool for large scale or routine computation of skeletal muscle area in cancer patients which may have applications on low quality CTs acquired as part of PET/CT studies for staging and surveillance of patients with cancer.

Indexed as

convolutional neural networksdeep learningimage segmentationlung cancersarcopeniaskeletal muscle

Identifiers

PMID34026597
PMCPMC8138051
OpenAlexW3163717494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.