ArticlePloS one2026
Repeatability of automated body composition measurement on low dose chest CT in male subjects.
Article in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective was to determine the most repeatable of three automated body composition methods applied to baseline and short-term follow-up chest CT scans.
methodsAreas of skeletal muscle and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) were analyzed in a 1 mm slice close to the aortic arch in a subset of males from the NELSON lung cancer screening trial with baseline and 3-4 month repeat CT scan. We compared three pre-existing machine learning methods we call: truncated field of view (FOV), compensated FOV, and extended FOV, of which the last two can deal with non-overlapping FOV in scans. Repeatability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and paired T-tests.
resultsOf 562 males the median (interquartile range) age was 60.8 (56.3-64.8) years. Mean skeletal muscle areas were similar for truncated (212 cm²) and extended FOV (211 cm²), and slightly lower for compensated FOV (208 cm²) (p < 0.001). SAT areas were higher with extended FOV (156 cm²) compared to truncated (132 cm²) and compensated FOV (125 cm²) (p < 0.001). A small systematic longitudinal difference in skeletal muscle was observed for extended FOV (mean±SD 1.7 ± 17.3 cm2, p = 0.017). Limits of agreement for skeletal muscle area were -18.9% to 20.4% for truncated FOV, -11.1% to 11.6% for compensated FOV, and -16.7% to 18.2% for extended FOV. Corresponding values for SAT area were -37.3% to 38.3%,-30.2% to 29.3%, and -29.1% to 29.9%.
conclusionExtended FOV had the second-most repeatable measurements and was unaffected by FOV cutoff. Compensated FOV was most repeatable, but underestimated SAT.
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.