ArticleScientific reports2026
Influence of CT parameters upon the quantification of sarcopenia and myosteatosis: a study with human bodies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association between deltoid muscle attenuation and sedation requirement in anterior shoulder dislocation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) is increasingly being used in the quantitative assessment of body composition (CT-assessed sarcopenia and myosteatosis), but the effects of varying technical CT parameters on muscle area and density measurements remain unclear. This study analyzed muscle area and density in six human bodies scanned with varying CT parameters (tube current, tube voltage, slice thickness, and iterative reconstruction levels). Significance of differences relative to our institution’s standard CT abdomen protocol and among all individual parameters was assessed, with effect sizes calculated to evaluate the magnitude of observed changes. Small but significant differences were found within all groups of investigated parameters, with most statistical significant differences corresponding to large effect sizes. Compared to our institution’s clinical protocol, tube current showed significant variation in measured muscle area (p < 0.001), but no significant changes in regard to muscle density. Tube voltage and reconstruction level type both showed a significant direct relationship with muscle area (p < 0.001) and inverse relationship with muscle density (p < 0.001). Also, a slice thickness of 0.6 mm, compared to 1 mm, showed significant differences in both muscle area and density (p < 0.001), where no significant variation was observed between 1 mm and thicker slices. In conclusion, CT technical parameters significantly affect muscle area and density measurements. Although individual differences are small, their cumulative effect may lead to clinically significant discrepancies.
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.