Automated extraction of body composition metrics from abdominal CT or MR imaging: A scoping review

Christopher Winder,Matthew Clark,Russell Frood,Lesley Smith,Andrew Bulpitt,Gordon Cook,Andrew Scarsbrook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111764

Abstract:Purpose: To review methodological approaches for automated segmentation of subcutaneous adipose tissue, visceral adipose tissue, and skeletal muscle from abdominal cross-sectional imaging for body composition analysis. Method: Four databases were searched for publications describing automated segmentation of subcutaneous adipose tissue, visceral adipose tissue, and/or skeletal muscle from abdominal CT or MR imaging between 2019 and 2023. Included reports were evaluated to assess how imaging modality, cohort size, vertebral level, model dimensionality, and use of a volume or single slice affected segmentation accuracy and/or clinical utility. Exclusion criteria included reports not in English language, manual or semi-automated segmentation methods, reports prior to 2019 or solely of paediatric patients, and those not describing the use of abdominal CT or MR. Results: After exclusions, 172 reports were included in the review. CT imaging was utilised approximately four times as often as MRI, and segmentation accuracy did not significantly differ between the two modalities. Cohort size had no significant effect on segmentation accuracy. There was little evidence to refute the current practice of extracting body composition metrics from the third lumbar vertebral level. There was no clear benefit of using a 3D model to perform segmentation over a 2D approach. Conclusion: Automated segmentation of intra-abdominal soft tissues for body composition analysis is an intense area of research activity. Segmentation accuracy is not affected by cross-sectional imaging modality. Extracting metrics from a single slice at the third lumbar vertebral level is a common approach, however, extracting metrics from a volumetric slab surrounding this level may increase the resilience of the technique, which is important for clinical translation. A paucity of publicly available datasets led to most reports using different data sources, preventing direct comparison of segmentation techniques. Future efforts should prioritise creating a standardised dataset to facilitate benchmarking of different algorithms and subsequent clinical adoption.