Sarah Karampatos1,2,3, Alexandra Papaioannou4,5,6, Karen A Beattie4, Monica R Maly7, Adrian Chan8, Jonathan D Adachi4, Janet M Pritchard4,5. 1. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. karampatos@hhsc.ca. 2. Juravinski Research Centre, Geriatric Education and Research in the Aging Sciences (GERAS) Centre, 88 Maplewood Avenue, Hamilton, ON, L8M 1W9, Canada. karampatos@hhsc.ca. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. karampatos@hhsc.ca. 4. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. 5. Juravinski Research Centre, Geriatric Education and Research in the Aging Sciences (GERAS) Centre, 88 Maplewood Avenue, Hamilton, ON, L8M 1W9, Canada. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. 7. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. 8. Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine the reliability of a magnetic resonance (MR) image segmentation protocol for quantifying intramuscular adipose tissue (IntraMAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue, total muscle and intermuscular adipose tissue (InterMAT) of the lower leg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten axial lower leg MRI slices were obtained from 21 postmenopausal women using a 1 Tesla peripheral MRI system. Images were analyzed using sliceOmatic™ software. The average cross-sectional areas of the tissues were computed for the ten slices. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were determined and expressed as the standard error of measurement (SEM) (absolute reliability) and intraclass coefficient (ICC) (relative reliability). RESULTS: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability for IntraMAT were 0.991 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.978-0.996, p < 0.05) and 0.983 (95% CI 0.958-9.993, p < 0.05), respectively. For the other soft tissue compartments, the ICCs were all >0.90 (p < 0.05). The absolute intra-rater and inter-rater reliability (expressed as SEM) for segmenting IntraMAT were 22.19 mm(2) (95% CI 16.97-32.04) and 78.89 mm(2) (95% CI 60.36-113.92), respectively. CONCLUSION: This is a reliable segmentation protocol for quantifying IntraMAT and other soft-tissue compartments of the lower leg. A standard operating procedure manual is provided to assist users, and SEM values can be used to estimate sample size and determine confidence in repeated measurements in future research.
OBJECTIVE: Determine the reliability of a magnetic resonance (MR) image segmentation protocol for quantifying intramuscular adipose tissue (IntraMAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue, total muscle and intermuscular adipose tissue (InterMAT) of the lower leg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten axial lower leg MRI slices were obtained from 21 postmenopausal women using a 1 Tesla peripheral MRI system. Images were analyzed using sliceOmatic™ software. The average cross-sectional areas of the tissues were computed for the ten slices. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were determined and expressed as the standard error of measurement (SEM) (absolute reliability) and intraclass coefficient (ICC) (relative reliability). RESULTS: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability for IntraMAT were 0.991 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.978-0.996, p < 0.05) and 0.983 (95% CI 0.958-9.993, p < 0.05), respectively. For the other soft tissue compartments, the ICCs were all >0.90 (p < 0.05). The absolute intra-rater and inter-rater reliability (expressed as SEM) for segmenting IntraMAT were 22.19 mm(2) (95% CI 16.97-32.04) and 78.89 mm(2) (95% CI 60.36-113.92), respectively. CONCLUSION: This is a reliable segmentation protocol for quantifying IntraMAT and other soft-tissue compartments of the lower leg. A standard operating procedure manual is provided to assist users, and SEM values can be used to estimate sample size and determine confidence in repeated measurements in future research.
Authors: Scott B Reeder; Angel R Pineda; Zhifei Wen; Ann Shimakawa; Huanzhou Yu; Jean H Brittain; Garry E Gold; Christopher H Beaulieu; Norbert J Pelc Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Amanda L Lorbergs; Michael D Noseworthy; Jonathan D Adachi; Paul W Stratford; Norma J MacIntyre Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Bret H Goodpaster; Seok Won Park; Tamara B Harris; Steven B Kritchevsky; Michael Nevitt; Ann V Schwartz; Eleanor M Simonsick; Frances A Tylavsky; Marjolein Visser; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: B L Tracy; F M Ivey; D Hurlbut; G F Martel; J T Lemmer; E L Siegel; E J Metter; J L Fozard; J L Fleg; B F Hurley Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 1999-01
Authors: Sharon L Rowan; Karolina Rygiel; Fennigje M Purves-Smith; Nathan M Solbak; Douglas M Turnbull; Russell T Hepple Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rosaly Correa-de-Araujo; Michael O Harris-Love; Iva Miljkovic; Maren S Fragala; Brian W Anthony; Todd M Manini Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Ah Young Kim; Lindsay Hochman Elam; Nicolaas Everhardus Lambrechts; Mo D Salman; Felix Michael Duerr Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2022-07-16 Impact factor: 2.792