ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning models for deriving optimised measures of fat and muscle mass from MRI.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
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
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.