Cited by 358Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMedical Imaging and AnalysisAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Automated Abdominal Segmentation of CT Scans for Body Composition Analysis Using Deep Learning

Weston, Alexander D., Korfiatis, Panagiotis, Kline, Timothy L., Philbrick, Kenneth A., Kostandy, Petro, Sakinis, Tomas, Sugimoto, Motokazu, Takahashi, Naoki +1 more·2019·Radiology

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

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2018181432

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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)
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