ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
CT colonography for assessing visceral obesity: clinical utility beyond colorectal screening.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVisceral obesity is a significant health risk, and the visceral fat area (VFA) measured on CT is a reliable indicator. The current study investigated whether the CT colonography (CTC)-derived VFA can identify visceral obesity, accounting for imaging variations due to colonic insufflation.
methodsWe retrospectively included patients who underwent both abdominal CT and CTC within 30 days. The waist circumference, VFA, and subcutaneous fat area (SFA) were measured at the umbilical and L1-L5 vertebral levels. Visceral obesity was defined as a VFA ≥ 100 cm² at the umbilical level on CT. The diagnostic performances of the CTC-derived VFA, BMI, and waist circumference were compared. In a secondary analysis, regression models were constructed to estimate the CT-derived VFA from the CTC measurements. Model performance was evaluated via 5-fold cross-validation and quantified with the mean absolute error (MAE).
resultsFifty-eight patients were included (median age 51.0 years, IQR 43.0-58.8; 42 males, 16 females). Compared with CT, CTC revealed a significantly greater waist circumference (89.9 vs. 87.5 cm, P < 0.001) and a lower VFA (96.0 vs. 110.3 cm², P = 0.005), whereas there was no significant difference in the SFA. The umbilical slice position remained unchanged in 49 patients (84.5%), and no patient's position shifted by two or more levels. The CTC-derived VFA demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance for visceral obesity, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.90 and 0.93. BMI yielded 0.73 and 0.75, and waist circumference 0.90 and 0.79, respectively. Incorporating additional slices (e.g., L2) further reduced the MAE from 19.76 to 16.54 cm² (P = 0.013).
conclusionThe CTC-derived VFA was shown to be a viable marker for identifying visceral obesity, thus potentially offering a secondary diagnostic resource without additional radiation exposure or costs. While single-slice models showed reasonable performance, multi-slice models demonstrated greater predictive accuracy.
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.