ArticleScientific reports2022
Healthy US population reference values for CT visceral fat measurements and the impact of IV contrast, HU range, and spinal levels.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Precision or Paradox? AI-Driven Adiposity Imaging in Women With Overweight and Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Obesity Promotes Lung Carcinogenesis Through Airway Immune Dysfunction.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2026Article
- Intra-vendor inter-scanner agreement of negative-HU measurements on fast kV-switching dual-energy CT virtual monoenergetic imaging: a phantom study.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Exploring Adipose Tissue Behavior in CT: Impact of Age, Sex, and Contrast Media on Body Composition, Liver and Skeletal Muscle.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- CT colonography for assessing visceral obesity: clinical utility beyond colorectal screening.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Automated contrast-to-noise ratio analysis in chest CT: validation of an open-source segmentation approach.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Opportunistic Screening on Chest CT, From theAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2026Review
- Sex-Based Differences in Imaging-Derived Body Composition and Their Association with Clinical Malnutrition in Abdominal Surgery Patients.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Article
- Role of tumor-specific and whole-body imaging biomarkers for prediction of recurrence in patients with stage III colorectal cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Observational
- Article
- Subcutaneous and Visceral Adipose Tissue Reference Values From the Framingham Heart Study Thoracic and Abdominal CT.Investigative radiology · 2025Observational
- The impact of intravenous iodinated contrast agents on radiotherapy dose calculation and radiobiological effect predictions in central lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Case Report: Hyperplastic cervical polyp with lipomatous differentiation in a dog.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Epicardial adipose tissue volume highly correlates with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in endogenous Cushing's syndrome.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- 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
- Incorporating adipose tissue into a CT-based deep learning nomogram to differentiate granulomas from lung adenocarcinomas.iScience · 2024Article
- Effect of abdominal adipose tissue glucose uptake on brain aging.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- Visceral fat area and subcutaneous fat area as measures of body composition in soft tissue sarcoma.Journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measurements of visceral adipose tissue cross-sectional area and radiation attenuation from computed tomography (CT) scans provide useful information about risk and mortality. However, scan protocols vary, encompassing differing vertebra levels and utilizing differing phases of contrast enhancement. Furthermore, fat measurements have been extracted from CT using different Hounsfield Unit (HU) ranges. To our knowledge, there have been no large studies of healthy cohorts that reported reference values for visceral fat area and radiation attenuation at multiple vertebra levels, for different contrast phases, and using different fat HU ranges. Two-phase CT scans from 1,677 healthy, adult kidney donors (age 18-65) between 1999 and 2017, previously studied to determine healthy reference values for skeletal muscle measures, were utilized. Visceral adipose tissue cross-sectional area (VFA) and radiation attenuation (VFRA) measures were quantified using axial slices at T10 through L4 vertebra levels. T-tests were used to compare males and females, while paired t-tests were conducted to determine the effect (magnitude and direction) of (a) contrast enhancement and (b) different fat HU ranges on each fat measure at each vertebra level. We report the means, standard deviations, and effect sizes of contrast enhancement and fat HU range. Male and female VFA and VFRA were significantly different at all vertebra levels in both contrast and non-contrast scans. Peak VFA was observed at L4 in females and L2 in males, while peak VFRA was observed at L1 in both females and males. In general, non-contrast scans showed significantly greater VFA and VFRA compared to contrast scans. The average paired difference due to contrast ranged from 1.6 to - 8% (VFA) and 3.2 to - 3.0% (VFRA) of the non-contrast value. HU range showed much greater differences in VFA and VFRA than contrast. The average paired differences due to HU range ranged from - 5.3 to 22.2% (VFA) and - 5.9 to 13.6% (VFRA) in non-contrast scans, and - 4.4 to 20.2% (VFA) and - 4.1 to 12.6% (VFRA) in contrast scans. The - 190 to - 30 HU range showed the largest differences in both VFA (10.8% to 22.2%) and VFRA (7.6% to 13.6%) compared to the reference range (- 205 to - 51 HU). Incidentally, we found that differences in lung inflation result in very large differences in visceral fat measures, particularly in the thoracic region. We assessed the independent effects of contrast presence and fat HU ranges on visceral fat cross-sectional area and mean radiation attenuation, finding significant differences particularly between different fat HU ranges. These results demonstrate that CT measurements of visceral fat area and radiation attenuation are strongly dependent upon contrast presence, fat HU range, sex, breath cycle, and vertebra level of measurement. We quantified contrast and non-contrast reference values separately for males and females, using different fat HU ranges, for lumbar and thoracic CT visceral fat measures at multiple vertebra levels in a healthy adult US population.
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.