Impact of Software Selection and ImageJ Tutorial Corrigendum on Skeletal Muscle Measures at the Third Lumbar Vertebra on Computed Tomography Scans in Clinical Populations

Teigen, Levi; Kuchnia, Adam J.; Nagel, Emily; Deuth, Christopher; Vock, David M.; Mulasi, Urvashi; Earthman, Carrie P.

doi:10.1002/jpen.1036

Cited by 25 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The slices with the clearest vertebral arch were determined to be retained for analyses. Image analysis for measuring CSA of the muscles was performed using ImageJ software [12]. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine format images were imported into ImageJ software and analyzed.…”

Section: Measurement Of Csa Of the Musclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formula for the Cross-Sectional Area of the Muscles of the Third Lumbar Vertebra Level from the Twelfth Thoracic Vertebra Level Slice on Computed Tomography

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate a means by which to reflect muscle mass using chest computed tomography (CT). A cross-sectional study was conducted with patients aged ≥ 65 years having abdominal and chest CT scans. The formula to predict third lumbar vertebra (L3) cross-sectional area (CSA) of the muscles from the erector muscles of the spine at the twelfth thoracic vertebra (Th12) level slice on CT was created using the five-fold cross-validation method. Correlation between predicted L3 CSA and measured L3 CSA of the muscles was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and correlation coefficients (r) in the data of the development, and predictability was examined with accuracy and F-values in the validation study. The development study included 161 patients. The developed formula was as follows: −1006.38 + 16.29 × age + 1161.80 × sex (if female, 0; if male, 1) + 55.91 × body weight + 2.22 × CSA of the erector muscles at Th12. The formula demonstrated strong concordance and correlation (ICC = 0.849 [0.800–0.887] and r = 0.858 [0.811–0.894]). The validation study included 34 patients. The accuracy and F-value between predicted CSA and measured CSA were high (accuracy = 0.889–0.944, F-value = 0.931–0.968). We developed a formula predicting CSA at L3 using Th12 CT slice. This formula could be used to assess decreased muscle mass even with chest CT alone.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Of Csa Of the Musclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formula for the Cross-Sectional Area of the Muscles of the Third Lumbar Vertebra Level from the Twelfth Thoracic Vertebra Level Slice on Computed Tomography

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This abbreviated version also includes the final step that delineates the perimeter of the vertebral body and subtracts this measured value (cm 3 ) from the SM CSA obtained in steps 1–3 (Figure ). This final step yields a more accurate estimate of SM CSA as clearly shown by Teigen et al . This final step was published as a corrigendum after the original publication of the tutorial.…”

Section: Abbreviated Tutorial For Assessment Of Waist Circumference Amentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Additionally, Bland‐Altman plots suggested strong comparability between SliceOmatic and ImageJ for abdominal visceral fat and right‐thigh SM. Recently, 2 separate studies have compared the tutorial (with the corrigendum) for ImageJ with SliceOmatic . Van Vugt et al analyzed 50 randomly selected CT images and evaluated agreement of CSA analysis of various imaging programs including ImageJ (using the tutorial and corrigendum) and SliceOmatic .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To quantify body composition using CT images, techniques have been developed using 2 medical imaging software packages, predominantly SliceOmatic and National Institutes of Health (NIH) ImageJ . Comparisons of the original ImageJ tutorial (with corrigendum) with SliceOmatic techniques (gold standard) for body composition analysis using CT have recently been published by independent research groups showing high agreement and excellent intra‐rater and interrater reliability …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tutorial: A Step‐by‐Step Guide (Version 2.0) for Measuring Abdominal Circumference and Skeletal Muscle From a Single Cross‐Sectional Computed‐Tomography Image Using the National Institutes of Health ImageJ

Gomez-Perez

McKeever

Sheean

2019

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In patients with acute and chronic illness, depleted skeletal muscle (SM) mass, also referred to as sarcopenia, is a condition associated with an underlying disease process and adverse outcomes. Because of software upgrades and errors related to installation, clarifications and a revised tutorial were needed for calculating SM cross‐sectional area (CSA) using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ImageJ. Methods A pilot study was conducted to determine the usability of the tutorial version 2.0. Eight adults (≥18 years of age) who had no previous experience or background in body composition or computed‐tomography imaging and owned a personal laptop computer (Mac or PC) were included in the pilot study. Participants were tested on the completion of 4 tasks: (1) installation of software, (2) updating the software, (3) following revised tutorial (version 2.0), and (4) transferring information from the software to a spreadsheet for calculation of SM CSA. Results All participants completed the tutorial and all assigned tasks, 4/4 (100%). However, 38% (3/8) of the participants made errors while cutting and pasting values from the ImageJ results box to a spreadsheet for calculating SM CSA. Conclusion The tutorial version 2.0 was easy to follow and provided sufficient information for adults to install, update, and perform the steps of body composition for the NIH ImageJ software without major issues. Care should be taken when cutting and pasting results from the software as well as when using the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for calculating SM CSA.

show abstract

“…Second, the Slice‐O‐matic software rather than ImageJ software was most commonly used in previous studies, and different software programs may give slightly different results. A small sample study conducted by Teigen et al revealed that the skeletal muscle measures show excellent inter‐software agreement, thus the results of studies using different software programs may be compared reliably. Finally, our proposed cutoff values have not yet been applied in patient populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Methods Used to Establish Sarcopenia Cutoff Values for Skeletal Muscle Measures Using Unenhanced and Contrast‐Enhanced Computed Tomography Images

Feng

Rong

Luo

et al. 2019

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Multiple cutoff values of computed tomography (CT)-based skeletal muscle measures have been proposed, but there is currently no consensus used to identify sarcopenia. We aimed to evaluate the influence of statistical methods used to establish sarcopenia cutoff values and to examine the impact of contrast enhancement on the skeletal muscle measures. Methods: The skeletal muscle area (SMA) and muscle radiation attenuation (MRA) of 316 healthy individuals were measured on unenhanced CT images at the third lumbar vertebra level, and the skeletal muscle index (SMI) was SMA divided by height squared. Possible cutoff values were established using 2 methods: 5 th percentile of individuals aged 20-60 years or mean − 2 × SD of individuals aged 20-50 years. The concordance was assessed using Cohen's κ coefficients and McNemar test. The skeletal muscle parameters on 3 phases from 30 CT examinations were compared. Results: The concordance between the 2 methods was almost perfect (κ coefficients: 0.830-0.849) for low MRA but slight to moderate (κ coefficients: 0.189-0.591) for low SMI, especially in the men (P < 0.01). Compared with the unenhanced images, the mean SMA, SMI, and MRA on the contrast-enhanced images increased by 0.8%-1.7%, 0.8%-1.8%, and 14.8%-21.6% (all P < 0.001), respectively, and only the changes in MRA were clinically significant. Conclusions: The methods for establishing cutoff values and contrast enhancement influence the identification of low SMI and low MRA, respectively. Thus, the definition of sarcopenia should include the standardized method for establishing cutoff values and the phase of CT for analysis. (JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. In this study, we comprehensively evaluated the influence of statistical methods used to establish sarcopenia cutoff values in a healthy population and examined the impact of contrast enhancement on the skeletal muscle measures. Our study highlights the standardized method for establishing cutoff values and the phase of computed tomography for analysis in the definition of sarcopenia. Future research should further validate the proposed sex-specific cutoff values in different patient populations.From the

show abstract

Impact of Software Selection and ImageJ Tutorial Corrigendum on Skeletal Muscle Measures at the Third Lumbar Vertebra on Computed Tomography Scans in Clinical Populations

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

Formula for the Cross-Sectional Area of the Muscles of the Third Lumbar Vertebra Level from the Twelfth Thoracic Vertebra Level Slice on Computed Tomography

Formula for the Cross-Sectional Area of the Muscles of the Third Lumbar Vertebra Level from the Twelfth Thoracic Vertebra Level Slice on Computed Tomography

Tutorial: A Step‐by‐Step Guide (Version 2.0) for Measuring Abdominal Circumference and Skeletal Muscle From a Single Cross‐Sectional Computed‐Tomography Image Using the National Institutes of Health ImageJ

Influence of Methods Used to Establish Sarcopenia Cutoff Values for Skeletal Muscle Measures Using Unenhanced and Contrast‐Enhanced Computed Tomography Images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About