↓ Skip to main content

McMaster University

The reliability of a segmentation methodology for assessing intramuscular adipose tissue and other soft-tissue compartments of lower leg MRI images

Overview of attention for article published in Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
The reliability of a segmentation methodology for assessing intramuscular adipose tissue and other soft-tissue compartments of lower leg MRI images
Published in
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10334-015-0510-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Karampatos, Alexandra Papaioannou, Karen A. Beattie, Monica R. Maly, Adrian Chan, Jonathan D. Adachi, Janet M. Pritchard

Abstract

Determine the reliability of a magnetic resonance (MR) image segmentation protocol for quantifying intramuscular adipose tissue (IntraMAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue, total muscle and intermuscular adipose tissue (InterMAT) of the lower leg. Ten axial lower leg MRI slices were obtained from 21 postmenopausal women using a 1 Tesla peripheral MRI system. Images were analyzed using sliceOmatic™ software. The average cross-sectional areas of the tissues were computed for the ten slices. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were determined and expressed as the standard error of measurement (SEM) (absolute reliability) and intraclass coefficient (ICC) (relative reliability). Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability for IntraMAT were 0.991 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.978-0.996, p < 0.05) and 0.983 (95 % CI 0.958-9.993, p < 0.05), respectively. For the other soft tissue compartments, the ICCs were all >0.90 (p < 0.05). The absolute intra-rater and inter-rater reliability (expressed as SEM) for segmenting IntraMAT were 22.19 mm(2) (95 % CI 16.97-32.04) and 78.89 mm(2) (95 % CI 60.36-113.92), respectively. This is a reliable segmentation protocol for quantifying IntraMAT and other soft-tissue compartments of the lower leg. A standard operating procedure manual is provided to assist users, and SEM values can be used to estimate sample size and determine confidence in repeated measurements in future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Psychology 3 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2015.
All research outputs
#13,718,294
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
#267
of 492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,750
of 395,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 492 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.