INTRODUCTION: Given the considerable time and research cost of analyzing biomedical images to quantify adipose tissue volumes, automated image analysis methods are highly desirable. Hippo Fat is a new software program designed to automatically quantify adipose tissue areas from magnetic resonance images without user inputs. Hippo Fat has yet to be independently validated against commonly used image analysis software programs. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare estimates of VAT (visceral adipose tissue) and SAT (subcutaneous adipose tissue) using the new Hippo Fat software against those from a widely used, validated, computer-assisted manual method (slice-O-matic version 4.2, Tomovision, Montreal, CA, USA) to assess its potential utility for large-scale studies. METHODS: A Siemens Magnetom Vision 1.5-T whole-body scanner and a T1-weighted fast-spin echo pulse sequence were used to collect multiple, contiguous axial images of the abdomen from a sample of 40 healthy adults (20 men) aged 18-77 years of age, with mean body mass index of 29 kg/m(2) (range=19-43 kg/m(2)). RESULTS: Hippo Fat provided estimates of VAT and SAT that were highly correlated with estimates using slice-O-matic (R (2)>0.9). Average VAT was 9.4% lower and average SAT was 3.7% higher using Hippo Fat compared to slice-O-matic; the overestimation of SAT tended to be greater among individuals with greater adiposity. Individual-level differences for VAT were also substantial; Hippo Fattrade mark gave estimates of VAT ranging from 1184 cm(3) less to 566 cm(3) more than estimates for the same person using slice-O-matic. CONCLUSION: Hippo Fat provides a rapid method of quantifying total VAT, although the method does not provide estimates that are interchangeable with slice-O-matic at either the group (mean) or individual level.
INTRODUCTION: Given the considerable time and research cost of analyzing biomedical images to quantify adipose tissue volumes, automated image analysis methods are highly desirable. Hippo Fat is a new software program designed to automatically quantify adipose tissue areas from magnetic resonance images without user inputs. Hippo Fat has yet to be independently validated against commonly used image analysis software programs. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare estimates of VAT (visceral adipose tissue) and SAT (subcutaneous adipose tissue) using the new Hippo Fat software against those from a widely used, validated, computer-assisted manual method (slice-O-matic version 4.2, Tomovision, Montreal, CA, USA) to assess its potential utility for large-scale studies. METHODS: A Siemens Magnetom Vision 1.5-T whole-body scanner and a T1-weighted fast-spin echo pulse sequence were used to collect multiple, contiguous axial images of the abdomen from a sample of 40 healthy adults (20 men) aged 18-77 years of age, with mean body mass index of 29 kg/m(2) (range=19-43 kg/m(2)). RESULTS: Hippo Fat provided estimates of VAT and SAT that were highly correlated with estimates using slice-O-matic (R (2)>0.9). Average VAT was 9.4% lower and average SAT was 3.7% higher using Hippo Fat compared to slice-O-matic; the overestimation of SAT tended to be greater among individuals with greater adiposity. Individual-level differences for VAT were also substantial; Hippo Fattrade mark gave estimates of VAT ranging from 1184 cm(3) less to 566 cm(3) more than estimates for the same person using slice-O-matic. CONCLUSION: Hippo Fat provides a rapid method of quantifying total VAT, although the method does not provide estimates that are interchangeable with slice-O-matic at either the group (mean) or individual level.
Authors: Cris A Slentz; Lori B Aiken; Joseph A Houmard; Connie W Bales; Johanna L Johnson; Charles J Tanner; Brian D Duscha; William E Kraus Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2005-07-07
Authors: M Krssak; K Falk Petersen; A Dresner; L DiPietro; S M Vogel; D L Rothman; M Roden; G I Shulman Journal: Diabetologia Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: J L Lancaster; A A Ghiatas; A Alyassin; R F Kilcoyne; E Bonora; R A DeFronzo Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1991 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andrew T Grainger; Arun Krishnaraj; Michael H Quinones; Nicholas J Tustison; Samantha Epstein; Daniela Fuller; Aakash Jha; Kevin L Allman; Weibin Shi Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kelsey Gabel; Cynthia M Kroeger; John F Trepanowski; Kristin K Hoddy; Sofia Cienfuegos; Faiza Kalam; Krista A Varady Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Angelique Nicolai; Ming Li; Dong Hyun Kim; Stephen J Peterson; Luca Vanella; Vincenzo Positano; Amalia Gastaldelli; Rita Rezzani; Luigi F Rodella; George Drummond; Claudia Kusmic; Antonio L'Abbate; Attallah Kappas; Nader G Abraham Journal: Hypertension Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Ellen W Demerath; Derek Reed; Nikki Rogers; Shumei S Sun; Miryoung Lee; Audrey C Choh; William Couch; Stefan A Czerwinski; W Cameron Chumlea; Roger M Siervogel; Bradford Towne Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Craig L Phillips; Brendon J Yee; Mike I Trenell; John S Magnussen; David Wang; Dev Banerjee; Norbert Berend; Ronald R Grunstein Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Karen Beattie; Michael J Davison; Michael Noseworthy; Jonathan D Adachi; Monica R Maly Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Audrey C Choh; Ellen W Demerath; Miryoung Lee; Kimberly D Williams; Bradford Towne; Roger M Siervogel; Shelley A Cole; Stefan A Czerwinski Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Stephen J Peterson; Dong Hyun Kim; Ming Li; Vincenzo Positano; Luca Vanella; Luigi F Rodella; Francesco Piccolomini; Nitin Puri; Amalia Gastaldelli; Claudia Kusmic; Antonio L'Abbate; Nader G Abraham Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 5.922