ArticlePhysiological reports2025
Shape factor versus truncated cone-based quantification of quadriceps and hamstring muscle volumes-A choice between accuracy and precision.
Article in Physiological reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating vastus lateralis muscle volume from a single ultrasound image.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Shape factor versus truncated cone-based quantification of quadriceps and hamstring muscle volumes-A choice between accuracy and precision.Physiological reports · 2025Article
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
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the average location of maximal anatomical cross-sectional area of the quadriceps and hamstrings and to investigate the agreement of different muscle volume estimation methods. Magnetic resonance imaging datasets were acquired from 39 soccer players. Muscle volumes were calculated using slice-by-slice segmentation and compared with the shape factor and truncated cone-based estimates. Descriptive data were expressed as means ± standard deviations, and Bland-Altman plots were used for agreement analyses. The average location of maximal anatomical cross-sectional area was at 61 ± 10%, 64 ± 10%, 29 ± 3%, and 56 ± 6% for the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, vastus medialis, and vastus intermedius, respectively. For the hamstrings, the maximal anatomical cross-sectional area was at 45 ± 3%, 48 ± 9%, 58 ± 7%, and 38 ± 8% for the biceps femoris short head, biceps femoris long head, semitendinosus, and semimembranosus, respectively. Relative biases ranged from 2% to 9% for the shape factor and from 6% to 14% for the truncated cone method. The ranges of agreement were -15% to 29% and -1% to 19%, respectively. The shape factor method showed better accuracy, while the truncated cone method displayed better precision.
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.