Cited by 94Body Composition Measurement TechniquesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment

Reproducibility and repeatability of MRI‐based body composition analysis

Open access
Borga, Magnus, Ahlgren, André, Romu, Thobias, Widholm, Per, Dahlqvist Leinhard, Olof, West, Janne·2020·Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is an absence of reproducibility studies on MRI-based body composition analysis in current literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the between-scanner reproducibility and the repeatability of a method for MRI-based body composition analysis. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers of varying body mass index and adiposity were each scanned twice on five different 1.5T and 3T scanners from three different vendors. Two-point Dixon neck-to knee images and two additional liver scans were acquired with similar protocols. Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume, abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (ASAT) volume, thigh muscle volume, and muscle fat infiltration (MFI) in the thigh muscle were measured. Liver proton density fat fraction (PDFF) was assessed using two different methods, the scanner vendor's 6-point method and an in-house 2-point method. Within-scanner test-retest repeatability and between-scanner reproducibility were calculated using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Repeatability coefficients were 13 centiliters (cl) (VAT), 24 cl (ASAT), 17 cl (total thigh muscle volume), 0.53% (MFI), and 1.27-1.37% for liver PDFF. Reproducibility coefficients were 24 cl (VAT), 42 cl (ASAT), 31 cl (total thigh muscle volume), 1.44% (MFI), and 2.37-2.40% for liver PDFF. CONCLUSION: For all measures except MFI, the within-scanner repeatability explained much of the overall reproducibility. The two methods for measuring liver fat had similar reproducibility. This study showed that the investigated method eliminates effects due to scanner differences. The results can be used for power calculations in clinical studies or to better understand the scanner-induced variability in clinical applications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mrm.28360

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous validation has shown high reproducibility and repeatability across manufacturers and field strengths, allowing for cross-study comparisons.

    “Previous validation has shown high reproducibility and repeatability across manufacturers and field strengths, allowing for cross-study comparisons.16”

    From Tirzepatide and muscle composition changes in people with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3 MRI): a post-hoc analysis of a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The MRI acquisitions section describes testing five scanners from three manufacturers at 1.5T and 3T, and the Results report within-scanner repeatability and between-scanner reproducibility. The Discussion says reproducibility enables comparison with reference values from other sources, but specifies values obtained by the same method. The claim is too broad as written: the paper reports substantially greater between-scanner variability for muscle fat infiltration (MFI), so it does not establish uniformly high reproducibility or unrestricted cross-study comparability. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The same scanning procedure, image analyses, and methods of quantification for muscle volume and muscle fat infiltration were used in the SURPASS-3 MRI substudy as in the UK Biobank.

    “The same scanning procedure, image analyses, and methods of quantification for muscle volume and muscle fat infiltration were used in the SURPASS-3 MRI substudy as in the UK Biobank.15,16”

    From Tirzepatide and muscle composition changes in people with type 2 diabetes (SURPASS-3 MRI): a post-hoc analysis of a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    Sections 2.3 (MRI acquisitions) and 2.4 (Body composition analysis; pages unavailable) describe the scanning and analysis methods used to quantify thigh muscle volume and muscle fat infiltration. The paper cites a UK Biobank imaging study, but our copy does not establish that the SURPASS-3 MRI substudy used the same procedures as the UK Biobank. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Morley JE. Sarcopenia; Chichester, West Sussex; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012;2012:219-220.
  2. Sullivan DC, Obuchowski NA, Kessler LG, et al. Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology. 2015;277:813-825.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borga, M., Ahlgren, A., Romu, T., Widholm, P., Dahlqvist Leinhard, O., & West, J.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • AMRA Medical AB Linköping Sweden
  • Center for Medical Image science and Visualization Linköping University Linköping Sweden
Corresponding author
Borga, Magnus
Venue
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-10
Volume
84
Issue
6
Pages
3146-3156
ISSN
  • 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2594
OpenAlex
W3032937495
Cited by
94
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet (2019‐04751)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
reproducibility, repeatability, visceral adipose tissue, subcutaneous abdominal fat, thigh muscle volume, muscle fat infiltration, liver fat fraction, proton density fat fraction, Dixon MRI
MeSH terms
Adipose Tissue, Body Composition, Humans, Liver, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review