Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40676073›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Deep learning models for deriving optimised measures of fat and muscle mass from MRI.

Belvin Thomas, M Adam Ali, Fatima M H Ali, Anthony Chung, Manjiri Joshi, Sophia Maiguma-Wilson, Gabrielle Reiff, Hadil Said, Pardis Zalmay, Michael Berks and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Belvin ThomasDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. belvin.thomas@icr.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6012-7212
M Adam AliDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Fatima M H AliRadiology Department, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, UK.
Anthony ChungRadiology Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Manjiri JoshiRadiology Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sophia Maiguma-WilsonRadiology Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Gabrielle ReiffRadiology Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Hadil SaidRadiology Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Pardis ZalmayRadiology Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Michael BerksDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matthew D BlackledgeDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
James P B O'ConnorDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. james.oconnor@icr.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) C19221/A15267Cancer Research UK (CRUK) C19221/A28683
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fat and muscle mass are potential biomarkers of wellbeing and disease in oncology, but clinical measurement methods vary considerably. Here we evaluate the accuracy, precision and ability to track change for multiple deep learning (DL) models that quantify fat and muscle mass from abdominal MRI. Specifically, subcutaneous fat (SF), intra-abdominal fat (VF), external muscle (EM) and psoas muscle (PM) were evaluated using 15 convolutional neural network (CNN)-based and 4 transformer-based deep learning model architectures. There was negligible difference in the accuracy of human observers and all deep learning models in delineating SF or EM. Both of these tissues had excellent repeatability of their delineation. VF was measured most accurately by the human observers, then by CNN-based models, which outperformed transformer-based models. In distinction, PM delineation accuracy and repeatability was poor for all assessments. Repeatability limits of agreement determined when changes measured in individual patients were due to real change rather than test-retest variation. In summary, DL model accuracy and precision of delineating fat and muscle volumes varies between CNN-based and transformer-based models, between different tissues and in some cases with gender. These factors should be considered when investigators deploy deep learning methods to estimate biomarkers of fat and muscle mass.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueDeep LearningIntra-Abdominal FatMagnetic Resonance ImagingMuscle, SkeletalAdultFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerReproducibility of ResultsSubcutaneous FatBiomarkerCachexiaMRIOncologySarcopaeniaWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID40676073
PMCPMC12271309

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.