Evidence mapPaperPMID 40293521Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025

Methodology for a fully automated pipeline of AI-based body composition tools for abdominal CT.

John W Garrett, Perry J Pickhardt, Ronald M Summers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Future of CT body composition research: Methodological discrepancies and advances.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John W GarrettDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. JGarrett@uwhealth.org.
Perry J PickhardtDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Ronald M SummersImaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate, reproducible body composition analysis from abdominal computed tomography (CT) images is critical for both clinical research and patient care. We present a fully automated, artificial intelligence (AI)-based pipeline that streamlines the entire process-from data normalization and anatomical landmarking to automated tissue segmentation and quantitative biomarker extraction. Our methodology ensures standardized inputs and robust segmentation models to compute volumetric, density, and cross-sectional area metrics for a range of organs and tissues. Additionally, we capture selected DICOM header fields to enable downstream analysis of scan parameters and facilitate correction for acquisition-related variability. By emphasizing portability and compatibility across different scanner types, image protocols, and computational environments, we ensure broad applicability of our framework. This toolkit is the basis for the Opportunistic Screening Consortium in Abdominal Radiology (OSCAR) and has been shown to be robust and versatile, critical for large multi-center studies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBody CompositionRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiography, AbdominalTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansAbdomenCTDeep learningMachine learningOpportunistic Screening

Identifiers

PMID40293521
PMCPMC12568892

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.