SynthesisBMC medical imaging2025
Automatability and validity of methods for the quantification of intra-/Intermuscular adipose tissue in conventional MRI: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) and Intramuscular fat (IMF) in skeletal muscle are critical biomarkers associated with functional decline in various musculoskeletal disorders. Routine clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences are frequently employed to quantify IMAT/IMF due to their broad availability and non-invasive nature. However, methodological standardization and comprehensive validation against quantitative MRI (qMRI) reference standards remain sparse. The lack of standardization and validation presents a significant barrier to clinical adoption. Furthermore, automation of IMAT/IMF quantification methods remains underexplored, which limits reproducibility and large-scale application in clinical settings. Addressing these gaps, which is the objective of this systematic review, is essential for ensuring seamless integration of IMAT/IMF quantification into clinical routine assessments.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we systematically reviewed 65 studies that assessed IMAT or IMF using conventional MRI. The selected studies were categorized based on their methodological approaches, anatomical regions analyzed, and validation against qMRI reference standards. Additionally, we classified the level of automation of these methods and identified the necessary steps to be implemented in order to reach full automation.
resultsOur findings reveal a high methodological diversity in the literature, with substantial variations based on the anatomical region studied. Very few studies validated their findings against qMRI reference standards, a crucial step for establishing these methods in clinical practice. The automation potential of the reviewed methods varied significantly, with only a limited number of studies addressing full automation.
conclusionThis systematic review highlights gaps in validation and automation of IMAT/IMF quantification methods using conventional MRI sequences. We provide guidance for researchers and clinicians aiming to implement these techniques in routine assessments. Transitioning from qualitative to quantitative MRI assessments requires standardization and automation to improve reproducibility and clinical applicability. Automation plays a key role in integrating these methods into clinical workflows, reducing manual effort, and increasing efficiency. By fostering the development of computer-aided solutions, this review supports the advancement of reliable and accessible IMAT/IMF quantification methods that have the potential to transform musculoskeletal imaging and patient care.
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.