Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42616350›Full record

ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026

Single-slice ct body-weight prediction with image and metadata fusion: a multi-model comparison.

Daniel Carrion, M K Badawy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel CarrionRadiology, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia. dcarrion87@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7564-8210
M K BadawyRadiology, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8029-9951

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A measurable fraction of examinations in retrospective imaging archives lack a recorded body weight, limiting metadata completeness for tasks such as cohort auditing, weight-stratified analysis, and the assembly of machine-learning training datasets. We developed and compared three approaches for body-weight prediction from a single middle-slice CT image: a LightGBM model on 19 CT-derived tabular features (water equivalent diameter, effective diameter, body composition, scanner parameters), an ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-18 on images alone, and a ResNet-18 with late fusion of the same 19 tabular features into the 512-dimensional image embedding. Models were trained with 5-fold patient-disjoint cross-validation on a combined train+validation development pool of 30,857 examinations from 16,169 patients; the best-performing fold of each model family was selected by within-fold validation mean absolute error (MAE) and evaluated, without further tuning, on a held-out test partition of 3,479 examinations from 1,796 patients (patient-disjoint from training and validation). On the test set, the fusion ResNet-18 achieved MAE 4.06 kg (95% CI 3.90-4.23; R² = 0.92), with 69.5% of predictions within ± 5 kg and 93.8% within ± 10 kg. A weighted ensemble of the fusion ResNet and LightGBM produced a small further reduction in MAE to 3.99 kg (paired bootstrap p < .001), but the 0.07 kg difference is below practically meaningful thresholds. The simpler single-model ResNet-18 with metadata fusion may be useful for retrospective missing-weight imputation, with split-conformal 90% and 95% prediction intervals (empirical test coverage 89% and 94%) available for case-level uncertainty quantification.

Indexed as

Body-weight predictionComputed tomographyDeep learningMulti-model comparisonRetrospective data completeness

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.