Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37436508›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Abdominal fat quantification using convolutional networks.

Daniel Schneider, Tobias Eggebrecht, Anna Linder, Nicolas Linder, Alexander Schaudinn, Matthias Blüher, Timm Denecke, Harald Busse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Daniel Schneider *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstr. 20, Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Tobias Eggebrecht *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstr. 20, Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Anna LinderDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstr. 20, Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Nicolas LinderDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstr. 20, Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Alexander SchaudinnDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstr. 20, Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Matthias BlüherIntegrated Research and Treatment Center (IFB) Adiposity Diseases, Leipzig University Medical Center, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 27, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Timm DeneckeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstr. 20, Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Harald BusseDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstr. 20, Haus 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. harald.busse@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9401-1269

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo present software for automated adipose tissue quantification of abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data using fully convolutional networks (FCN) and to evaluate its overall performance-accuracy, reliability, processing effort, and time-in comparison with an interactive reference method. MATERIALS AND

methodsSingle-center data of patients with obesity were analyzed retrospectively with institutional review board approval. Ground truth for subcutaneous (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) segmentation was provided by semiautomated region-of-interest (ROI) histogram thresholding of 331 full abdominal image series. Automated analyses were implemented using UNet-based FCN architectures and data augmentation techniques. Cross-validation was performed on hold-out data using standard similarity and error measures.

resultsThe FCN models reached Dice coefficients of up to 0.954 for SAT and 0.889 for VAT segmentation during cross-validation. Volumetric SAT (VAT) assessment resulted in a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.999 (0.997), relative bias of 0.7% (0.8%), and standard deviation of 1.2% (3.1%). Intraclass correlation (coefficient of variation) within the same cohort was 0.999 (1.4%) for SAT and 0.996 (3.1%) for VAT.

conclusionThe presented methods for automated adipose-tissue quantification showed substantial improvements over common semiautomated approaches (no reader dependence, less effort) and thus provide a promising option for adipose tissue quantification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Deep learning techniques will likely enable image-based body composition analyses on a routine basis. The presented fully convolutional network models are well suited for full abdominopelvic adipose tissue quantification in patients with obesity. KEY POINTS: • This work compared the performance of different deep-learning approaches for adipose tissue quantification in patients with obesity. • Supervised deep learning-based methods using fully convolutional networks  were suited best. • Measures of accuracy were equal to or better than the operator-driven approach.

Indexed as

Abdominal FatIntra-Abdominal FatHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingObesityReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSubcutaneous FatAdipose tissueDeep learningImage processing, computer-assistedMagnetic resonance imagingObesity

Identifiers

PMID37436508
PMCPMC10667157

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.