Why the study?
Does automatic correction of intensity inhomogeneities improve the accuracy of unsupervised assessment of abdominal fat by MRI?
Does automatic correction of intensity inhomogeneities improve the accuracy of unsupervised assessment of abdominal fat by MRI?
Automatic correction of signal inhomogeneities in MRI improves the accuracy of unsupervised assessment of subcutaneous abdominal fat compared to manual analysis.
May enhance unsupervised abdominal fat MRI accuracy; leaves open clinical validation before practice adoption.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate that unsupervised assessment of abdominal adipose tissue distribution by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be improved by integrating automatic correction of signal inhomogeneities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty subjects (body mass index [BMI] 23.7-44.0 kg/m(2)) underwent abdominal (32 slices) MR imaging with a 1.9T Elscint Prestige scanner. Many images were affected by relevant intensity distortions. Unsupervised segmentation of subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was performed by a previously validated algorithm exploiting standard fuzzy clustering segmentation. Images were also processed by an improved version of the software, including automatic correction of intensity inhomogeneities. To assess the effectiveness of the two methods SAT and VAT volumes were compared with manual analysis performed by a trained operator. RESULTS: Coefficient of variation between manual and unsupervised analysis was significantly improved by inhomogeneities correction in SAT evaluation. Systematic underestimation of SAT was also corrected. A less important performance improvement was found in VAT measurement. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the compensation of signal inhomogeneities greatly improves the effectiveness of the unsupervised assessment of abdominal fat. Correction of intensity distortions is important in SAT evaluation and less significant in VAT measurement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Positano et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: