ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2026
Volumetric assessment from L2 to L4 improves the reliability and validity of body composition by CT.
Article in European journal of radiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBody composition (skeletal muscle, adipose tissue, and bone) is a general measure of health that can be determined from abdominal computed tomography (CT) using deep learning (DL) algorithms. Use of a volumetric approach, rather than the more commonly used single axial slice, likely improves the reliability and validity of body composition biomarkers, but a standardized approach is needed.
methodsA study was designed to test the reliability of volumetric body composition assessment in serial CTs. Residents of Southern Minnesota and Western Wisconsin who had two consecutive abdominal CT exams 1 to 14 days apart from 2010 to 2021 were identified. Previously-validated DL models were applied to both CT exams, and three methods of determining body composition biomarkers were compared: two-dimensional (2D) model on a slice at the midpoint of L3, three-dimensional (3D) model on a slice at the midpoint of L3, and 3D model on slices extending from L2 to L4. For each method, reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) separately in paired noncontrast and paired contrast-enhanced CT exams and validity was assessed by the strength of association of each body composition measure with age.
resultsThere were 3,376 persons with paired noncontrast and 9,103 persons with paired contrast-enhanced CT exams. The 3D body composition biomarkers from L2-L4 showed generally better reliability than the 2D or 3D biomarkers at the midpoint of L3 with higher ICCs observed with or without use of contrast. The 3D body composition more strongly correlated with age than 2D body composition for most biomarkers. The 3D bone area from L2-L4 more strongly correlated with age than 3D bone area at the midpoint of L3.
conclusionVolumetric L2-L4 body composition analysis shows better reliability and validity than single slice L3 analysis, and this may result in more accurate clinical associations with body composition.
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.