ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Development of a Deep Learning Model for Automated Measurement of Skeletal Muscle Volume in
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To develop a deep learning-based automated trunk muscle volumetry method using whole-body CT from PET/CT and evaluate its performance against bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). In this retrospective study, an nnU-Net-based segmentation model was developed using a three-step iterative refinement strategy with 20 manually annotated datasets. Trunk muscles were segmented in 209 individuals (median age 52 years, IQR 47-60.3; 148 men) undergoing PET/CT and BIA. Model performance was validated using Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs). Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) compared BIA-derived trunk muscle mass with that estimated by automated 3D volume or conventional 2D L3 cross-sectional area (CSA). Williams' t test compared dependent correlations. The segmentation model achieved a DSC of 0.991. Automated 3D muscle volume demonstrated a significantly stronger correlation with BIA-derived mass (r = 0.961; 95% CI: 0.948, 0.970) compared to 2D L3-CSA (r = 0.912; 95% CI: 0.886, 0.933; P < 0.001). While 3D volumetry maintained high correlations in both sexes (r = 0.898 for both), 2D L3-CSA showed significantly reduced performance in men (r = 0.757; P < 0.001 vs. 3D). Automated 3D volumetry provides a significantly more robust assessment of muscle mass than conventional 2D metrics by capturing whole-trunk anatomical variations. This framework enables accurate, scalable body composition analysis directly from routine PET/CT workflows without additional radiation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42477208What 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.