| Literature DB >> 26846251 |
Young Jae Kim1, Ji Won Park, Jong Wan Kim, Chan-Soo Park, John Paul S Gonzalez, Seung Hyun Lee, Kwang Gi Kim, Jae Hwan Oh.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is often viewed as one of the most accurate methods for measuring visceral adipose tissue (VAT). However, measuring VAT and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) from CT is a time-consuming and tedious process. Thus, evaluating patients' obesity levels during clinical trials using CT scans is both cumbersome and limiting.Entities:
Keywords: computed tomography; computer-assisted image analysis; obesity; subcutaneous adipose tissue; visceral adipose tissue
Year: 2016 PMID: 26846251 PMCID: PMC4759454 DOI: 10.2196/medinform.4923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Med Inform
Figure 1Algorithm flowchart.
Figure 2Result of the threshold application to the visceral region.
Figure 4Result of the separation mask.
Figure 3Result of the application of the Convex Hull algorithm and threshold.
Figure 5Process of coordinate correction.
Figure 6Automated segmentation and measurement results for SAT (green) and VAT (red).
The conditional probability test between the automated and manual measurements.
|
| Sensitivity, % | Specificity, % | Accuracy, % | Dice similarity coefficient | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| TAT | 97.45 | 99.96 | 99.69 | 0.99 |
|
| SAT | 97.24 | 99.98 | 99.79 | 0.98 |
|
| VAT | 97.54 | 99.88 | 99.79 | 0.97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| TAT | 97.39 | 99.89 | 99.62 | 0.98 |
|
| SAT | 96.96 | 99.98 | 99.77 | 0.98 |
|
| VAT | 97.87 | 99.81 | 99.74 | 0.97 |
Comparison and verification between the results of the automated and manual measurements.
| Item | Mean volumea (SD) |
|
| ICC |
| |
|
|
| .035 | .965 | .99 | < .001 | |
|
| MAUT | 7913.79 (2852.62) |
|
|
|
|
|
| MM1 | 8021.56 (2877.91) |
|
|
|
|
|
| MM2 | 7972.33 (2889.43) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .186 | .830 | .99 | < .001 | |
|
| MAUT | 4620.38 (1735.76) |
|
|
|
|
|
| MM1 | 4750.01 (1801.47) |
|
|
|
|
|
| MM2 | 4757.41 (1822.06) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .075 | .928 | .99 | < .001 | |
|
| MAUT | 3293.41 (1497.11) |
|
|
|
|
|
| MM1 | 3271.54 (1469.16) | . |
|
|
|
|
| MM2 | 3214.91 (1473.27) |
|
|
|
|
aMean volumes and SD measured in milliliter.
b P value for ANOVA test.
c P value for ICC.
Figure 7Comparison of the elapsed time required for measuring body fat within the range of the umbilical level (12 cm).
Comparison of the automated measurement of AT proposed in this paper with previously published studies.
|
| Study | |||
|
| Bandekar et al [ | Zhao et al [ | Kullberg et al [ | Proposed method |
| Modality | CT | CT | MRI | CT |
| Range | 1 slice at umbilical level | 1 slice at umbilical level | Volume of umbilical level | Volume of entire abdominal cavity |
| Number of data sets | 40 | 9 | 17 | 100 |
| Accuracy of SAT, % (SD) | 98.29 (0.62) | 99.35 | 96 (2.3) | 99.78 (0.18) |
| Accuracy of VAT, % (SD) | 97.66 (0.98) | 98.46 | 90 (6.5) | 99.76 (0.16) |