Automated Abdominal Segmentation of CT Scans for Body Composition Analysis Using Deep Learning
Abstract
Purpose To develop and evaluate a fully automated algorithm for segmenting the abdomen from CT to quantify body composition. Materials and Methods For this retrospective study, a convolutional neural network based on the U-Net architecture was trained to perform abdominal segmentation on a data set of 2430 two-dimensional CT examinations and was tested on 270 CT examinations. It was further tested on a separate data set of 2369 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). CT examinations were performed between 1997 and 2015. The mean age of patients was 67 years; for male patients, it was 67 years (range, 29-94 years), and for female patients, it was 66 years (range, 31-97 years). Differences in segmentation performance were assessed by using two-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. Results Compared with reference segmentation, the model for this study achieved Dice scores (mean ± standard deviation) of 0.98 ± 0.03, 0.96 ± 0.02, and 0.97 ± 0.01 in the test set, and 0.94 ± 0.05, 0.92 ± 0.04, and 0.98 ± 0.02 in the HCC data set, for the subcutaneous, muscle, and visceral adipose tissue compartments, respectively. Performance met or exceeded that of expert manual segmentation. Conclusion Model performance met or exceeded the accuracy of expert manual segmentation of CT examinations for both the test data set and the hepatocellular carcinoma data set. The model generalized well to multiple levels of the abdomen and may be capable of fully automated quantification of body composition metrics in three-dimensional CT examinations. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chang in this issue.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Deep learning-based algorithms have increasingly been investigated for automated segmentation of body composition from medical imaging.
“In recent years, deep learning-based algorithms have increasingly been investigated for automated segmentation of body composition from medical imaging [14, 15].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 358
- Authors
- Weston, A. D., Korfiatis, P., Kline, T. L., Philbrick, K. A., Kostandy, P., Sakinis, T., Sugimoto, M., Takahashi, N., & Erickson, B. J.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 290
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 669-679
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2905023912
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 15.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- abdominal segmentation, body composition, CT, U-Net, convolutional neural networks, hepatocellular carcinoma, subcutaneous adipose tissue, visceral adipose tissue, muscle, automatic segmentation, manual segmentation comparison
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Body Composition, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Humans, Liver Neoplasms, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Radiography, Abdominal, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed
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