ArticleScientific reports2026
Technical performance of L3 skeletal muscle area (SMA) measurement on CT for L3 skeletal muscle index (L3SMI) assessment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims at documenting the technical performances of the Skeletal Muscle Index at the L3 vertebra (L3SMI). In this retrospective multicenter study, we used TotalSegmentator freeware to segment muscles in axial CT scans at the L3 vertebra level and measure Skeletal Muscle Area (SMA). A dataset of 100 cancer patients (lung, colorectal, adrenal, pancreatic) was analyzed for accuracy, reproducibility, and linearity, using expert-segmented ground truth. A second dataset of 205 prone/supine colorectal cancer patients assessed repeatability in a test-retest setting. Outliers were reviewed to define exclusion criteria for L3SMI assessment. We computed within Coefficient of Variation (wCV), Bland-Altman analysis for variability and repeatability, and measured absolute/relative bias with confidence intervals from bootstrapped data. Bablok regression assessed measurement linearity. Intra and inter readers variability were, respectively, 5% and 7.6%. Relative bias was - 8.5% (95%CI: - 9.8, - 7.3), absolute bias was - 11.3cm
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.