Key result
Supervised automatic analysis for MRI-based fat quantification in morbidly obese patients was highly correlated with manual analysis (R=0.981) and significantly faster (10 vs 21 minutes, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does supervised automatic analysis software improve processing time while maintaining reliability compared to manual segmentation for MRI-based abdominal fat quantification in morbidly obese patients?
Population
20 morbidly obese patients (average BMI 44 kg/m2)
Comparison
Supervised automatic analysis and fully… vs Manual segmentation analysis (MSA)
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
May accelerate MRI fat quantification workflows in obesity; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Does supervised automatic analysis software improve processing time while maintaining reliability compared to manual segmentation for MRI-based abdominal fat quantification in morbidly obese patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 10% vs 21%
p-value: p=<0.001
Supervised automatic analysis provides a reliable and significantly faster alternative to manual segmentation for MRI-based abdominal fat quantification in morbidly obese patients.
Thörmer et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Morbid obesity (n=20). Supervised automatic analysis (SAA) vs. Manual segmentation analysis (MSA) was evaluated on Processing time (minutes) (p=<0.001). Supervised automatic analysis for MRI-based fat quantification in morbidly obese patients was highly correlated with manual analysis (R=0.981) and significantly faster (10 vs 21 minutes, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: