Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41957822›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2026

Methodologies for establishing and validating cut-points and comparative standards in medical imaging-based body composition analysis: a scoping review protocol.

Alanood Aljanahi, Kathryn V Dalrymple, Eirini Dimidi, Erin Stella Sullivan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Alanood AljanahiDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 9NQ, UK.
Kathryn V DalrympleDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 9NQ, UK.
Eirini DimidiDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 9NQ, UK.
Erin Stella SullivanDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 9NQ, UK. erin_stella.sullivan@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical imaging-based body composition analysis (BCA) has shown promise in offering detailed, noninvasive assessments of fat, muscle, and bone, but challenges persist in establishing consistent comparative standards. Current studies reveal significant variability in methodologies, which limits comparability and clinical application. This highlights the need for a comprehensive review to explore these methodologies and address the gap in standardisation. The aim of the study is to identify and map the methodologies used in body composition imaging to establish and validate comparative standards (such as cut-points, thresholds, or normative values) and to catalogue the proposed comparative standards.

methodsThis scoping review will be conducted following JBI methodology. The following eligibility criteria will be applied: Population: healthy subjects with no major comorbidities or individuals with cancer assessed using body composition imaging (BCI) and concept: methodologies for establishing BCI comparative standards and/or formally validating them against any outcome or other BCA reference standard. This scoping review will consider studies across all clinical settings. There will be no restrictions on the setting or purpose of the original study. Validation studies using BCI as the reference standard will not be included unless the comparative standard being validated is another BCI feature. The electronic databases to be searched are Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, EBSCOhost CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and IEEE Xplore. Grey literature sources will not be included. Studies published in English will be considered, with no date restrictions applied. Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts, followed by full-text articles, and will undertake data extraction. Data extracted will be presented in tabular and/or diagrammatic form for comprehensive narrative synthesis. DISCUSSION: The scoping review will summarise existing evidence on BCI. It will identify potential methodological gaps, describe current proposed thresholds or normative values, and highlight areas for further research to establish validated cut-points. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QZMN2 .

Indexed as

Body CompositionDiagnostic ImagingHumansReference StandardsReference ValuesResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicBody composition assessmentCut-off pointsDiagnostic thresholdsMedical image analysisNutritional assessmentPrognostic factorRadiomics validationStandardisation methods

Identifiers

PMID41957822
PMCPMC13191994

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.