Robust Body Composition Analysis by Generating 3D CT Volumes from Limited 2D Slices

Aravind R. Krishnan; Bennett A. Landman; Dingjie Su; Fabien Maldonado; Kaiwen Xu; Lianrui Zuo; Luigi Ferrucci; Shunxing Bao; Xin Yu; Yihao Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 24 references

Robust Body Composition Analysis by Generating 3D CT Volumes from Limited 2D Slices

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a latent diffusion model, guided by body-part-regression location scores, can synthesize a 3D abdominal CT volume from just two 2D slices, cutting the subcutaneous fat-to-muscle estimation error from 23.3% to 15.2%.

desk verdict Plausible method, honest writing, but the central comparison is confounded because it changes two things at once—slice count and measurement type—so the reported 23.3% to 15.2% gain cannot be attributed to the LDM. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13071 v1 pith:NA5PWH5T submitted 2025-01-22 cs.CV eess.IV

Lianrui Zuo , Xin Yu , Dingjie Su , Kaiwen Xu , Aravind R. Krishnan , Yihao Liu , Shunxing Bao , Fabien Maldonado

show 2 more authors

Luigi Ferrucci Bennett A. Landman

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVeess.IV

keywords latentdiffusioncomputedtomographybodycompositionanalysis3Dvolumesynthesissliceimputationpartregressionfat-to-muscleratio

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Standard body-composition analysis from CT uses a single 2D abdominal slice, but the slice's exact position varies between scans, making area-based fat-to-muscle ratios noisy. This paper tries to instead reconstruct a full 3D CT volume from only the two slices that longitudinal studies actually acquire, using a latent diffusion model guided by body-part-regression location scores. On held-out abdominal CTs, the volumetric estimate of the subcutaneous fat-to-muscle ratio cuts the average error from 23.3% to 15.2%. The paper argues that the volumetric approach is more robust to slice-position variability, though it does not improve visceral-fat estimation because internal organs are not faithfully synthesized.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a latent diffusion model running on stacks of VAE-encoded 2D slices, combined with a body-part regression module that scores each slice against a whole-body CT atlas so the model knows the axial gap between the acquired slices. At inference, the known slices' noisy latent codes are pasted into the reverse-diffusion estimate at every time step, so the model interpolates and extrapolates the missing slices while respecting the given ones. The location features are fed to the denoising network for slices that have them and zeroed for slices being generated.

What would settle it

Run body-part regression on 3D CT volumes from two different scanners with known vertebral landmarks; if the predicted slice gap between, say, L1 and L3 differs by more than one slice thickness across scanners or body-mass-index groups, the slice-spacing assumption fails and the generated volume geometry is biased. A simpler check: compute the Dice overlap of subcutaneous fat between the synthetic volume and the true 3D volume at matched vertebral levels; the reported 15.2% error requires that overlap to clear a threshold that can be read off the error formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a few 2D CT slices, together with their estimated positions in the body, carry enough information to synthesize a plausible 3D abdominal CT volume, and that body-composition measurements taken from that synthetic volume are closer to true volumetric measurements than measurements taken from any single real slice. The method encodes each acquired slice with a variational autoencoder, feeds the latent stack together with body-part-regression features into a latent diffusion model, and uses an inpainting-style mask to keep the known slices fixed while diffusion fills in the slices between and beyond them. Quantitatively, the subcutaneous fat-to-muscle ratio error drops from 23.3 ± 15.1% (top-slice area-based) to 15.2 ± 7.3% (volumetric from two conditioned slices), and error falls further as more conditioning slices are added (12.7% with four slices). The paper is explicit that visceral fat estimation does not improve, because the generator does not reconstruct abdominal organs accurately.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline depends on body-part-regression scores reliably mapping each acquired slice to its true axial position in the body; if the same anatomical level yields different scores across people or scanners, the model will place the slices at the wrong distance apart and synthesize a volume with distorted geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Volumetric body-composition estimates from two slices reduce the subcutaneous fat-to-muscle ratio error to 15.2 ± 7.3%, compared with 23.3 ± 15.1% for the top-slice area-based estimate.
Adding more conditioning slices monotonically reduces both subcutaneous and visceral fat-to-muscle errors, reaching 12.7% and 18.9% respectively with four slices.
Body-part-regression location guidance statistically significantly helps when only one or two slices are available, but its contribution disappears when three or four slices condition the model.
The synthetic volumes are not anatomically reliable for organs, so the method should not be used for visceral fat or organ-level measurements.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same masked-diffusion recipe could be retargeted to synthesize 3D volumes from DXA-like 2D projections, which the paper names as future work; the location conditioning would have to be replaced with projection-geometry features.
If the goal is body composition rather than radiological realism, generating segmentation labels directly instead of intensity volumes might sidestep the organ-synthesis failure and improve visceral fat estimates—this is an alternative the paper flags.
A testable extension: the error reduction should be largest for patients whose true slice position deviates most from the planned level, since the volumetric estimate averages over position noise; this could be checked by stratifying the held-out set by measured position offset.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea here is genuinely new: conditioning a latent diffusion model on body-part-regression features to synthesize a 64-slice 3D abdominal CT from two input slices, then measuring volumetric fat-to-muscle ratios. That combination is not in the cited prior work, and the paper is refreshingly honest about where it fails—visceral fat estimation does not improve, and the authors explicitly flag that internal organs are not anatomically reliable. The ablation on BPR features includes Wilcoxon tests and shows the location signal helps when only one or two slices are given. Those are real strengths.

The soft spot is the central claim, and it is bigger than the reader's concern about BPR. The main comparison in Table 1 pits a single-slice area-based ratio against the proposed two-slice volumetric ratio. That is a two-variable change: input count and measurement definition. The stress-test note is right—without a control that receives the same two slices and does something simple like linear intensity interpolation or segmentation-and-interpolation before computing a volumetric ratio, there is no way to know whether the 15.2% error reflects the generative model or just the advantage of having two slices and a metric that matches the ground truth. The visceral fat result, where the proposed method actually gets worse (24.2% to 26.3%), reinforces the suspicion that the method is not uniformly better than the 2D baseline.

Other issues are proportionate: no significance test on the main comparison, a 20-patient test set, datasets are not named, and no code or weights are released. These are addressable, and the paper would be meaningfully stronger if the authors added a two-slice non-generative baseline, ran paired significance tests, specified their data, and released the model. The BPR localization assumption the reader flagged is real but secondary—even with perfect BPR, the main attribution problem remains.

Who is this for? Researchers working on sparse-slice CT synthesis or body composition from limited acquisitions. They will get a clear method description and an honest failure analysis, but not yet a citable demonstration that LDM-based volume synthesis beats simpler interpolation. I would send this to peer review because the method is worth referee time and the flaws are fixable, but I would expect the reviewers to ask for exactly the missing control and statistical tests.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for generating a 3D abdominal CT volume from one or a few 2D axial slices, using a body-part-regression (BPR) module to locate the acquired slices and a latent diffusion model (LDM) to synthesize the missing slices. The synthesized volume is segmented with TotalSegmentator, and body-composition ratios (subcutaneous fat to muscle, visceral fat to muscle) are computed volumetrically and compared with single-slice area-based ratios from the same held-out CTs. On 20 held-out exams, the proposed two-slice method reduces the mean subcutaneous-fat ratio error from 23.3% (top slice) to 15.2%, but increases the visceral-fat ratio error from 24.2% to 26.3%. Ablations vary the number of conditioning slices and test the contribution of BPR features.

Significance. Body-composition analysis from a limited number of CT slices is clinically relevant, and the idea of synthesizing an intermediate volume rather than relying on a single axial slice is a reasonable strategy for reducing positional variance. The pipeline is clearly described, and the end-to-end held-out evaluation with TotalSegmentator is a sensible protocol. The paper also includes Wilcoxon tests for the BPR-feature ablation, which is a useful check. However, the central quantitative claim of significant enhancement over traditional 2D analysis is not yet established, because the main comparison changes two variables at once and the visceral-fat result goes in the opposite direction.

major comments (3)

[§3.1, Table 1] The headline comparison is confounded. The baseline is a single-slice area-based ratio, while the proposed method uses two slices and computes a volumetric ratio from a synthesized volume. This changes both the input (one versus two slices) and the measurement target (area versus volume). The reported improvement from 23.3% to 15.2% could in principle be obtained by any reasonable two-slice interpolation, or even by averaging the two endpoint ratios, without an LDM. Please add a non-generative two-slice control, such as linear interpolation of intensities followed by the same TotalSegmentator protocol, or interpolation of the segmentation masks, and report its error. Only if the LDM significantly outperforms that control can the gain be attributed to the proposed generative model.
[Abstract and §3.1, Table 1] The claim of significant enhancement over traditional 2D analysis is not supported by a significance test between the proposed method and the top/bottom-slice baselines. Table 2 reports Wilcoxon tests only for the BPR-feature ablation, not for the central comparison. Moreover, the proposed method's visceral-fat error (26.3%) is worse than the top-slice baseline (24.2%), so the statement that the proposed method reduced the error rate needs qualification. Please report per-subject paired comparisons (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank tests or bootstrap confidence intervals) for both Err(RS.Fat) and Err(RV.Fat) against each baseline.
[§2.1] The correctness of the interpolation depends on BPR-derived slice ordering and spacing (Nbetween), but the paper provides no validation of BPR on the held-out data. If BPR scores do not map consistently to anatomical levels across subjects or scanners, the generated volume will have incorrect geometry and the volumetric ratios will be biased independently of the diffusion model. Please report BPR-predicted slice indices versus true slice positions on the 20 held-out CTs (e.g., mean absolute error in mm or in slice count), or otherwise justify the transferability of the module to this dataset.

minor comments (6)

[§3.1, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is rendered incorrectly, with garbled subscripts and parentheses; please rewrite it with clear notation and state explicitly that R_S.Fat for the 2D baseline is an area ratio while the proposed method uses a volumetric ratio.
[§2.3] The text says 'Ns = 64' but the variable defined in Section 2.1 is Ntotal; please use consistent notation and clarify whether the 64-slice segment is always centered at the same anatomical region or varies per subject.
[Table 2] The boldface entries indicate statistical significance for the BPR comparison only; the table would be clearer if the p-values or a footnote describing the paired test were included, and if the comparison across conditioning-slice counts were not presented as if it were significance-tested.
[§3.1] The manuscript alternates between 'viscera fat' and 'visceral fat'; please unify the terminology.
[References] Reference [23] is malformed, with an ellipsis in the author list and incomplete publication details; please complete the citation.
[Figure 1] The introductory claim that area-based ratios vary more than volume-based ratios is illustrated with only four subjects; either add more subjects or soften the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the held-out evaluation is self-contained and the BPR/LDM citations are external support, not inputs that force the reported result.

full rationale

The central claim is that a latent diffusion model generates a 3D CT volume from two 2D slices and that body-composition analysis on that volume reduces error from 23.3% to 15.2%. The derivation chain is: (1) train a VAE and LDM on 323 abdominal CT volumes; (2) at inference, condition on the top and bottom slices of a held-out 64-slice segment; (3) use RePaint-style replacement of latent codes at acquired slice positions (Eq. 1); (4) segment the generated volume with TotalSegmentator and compute the volumetric fat-to-muscle ratio error against the ground-truth volume using Eq. 2. No parameter is fitted to the held-out test labels, and the error metric is defined on an external ground truth. The BPR module is cited from prior work (Tang et al., 2021) rather than derived in this paper; using it as a conditioning input is a self-contained design choice, not a circular reduction. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem, does not smuggle an ansatz via citation, and does not rename an existing result. The skeptic's concern that the two-slice volumetric baseline is confounded with the generative model is an experimental-design limitation, not circularity: the reported 15.2% is a measured held-out outcome rather than a quantity that equals its input by construction. The self-citations to prior work by the same group are present but not load-bearing in a circular sense; the cited LDM (Rombach et al.) and RePaint (Lugmayr et al.) are external, and the BPR module is an independent published component. The paper's own stated limitations (poor organ synthesis, no visceral-fat improvement) further indicate that the reported result is an empirical finding rather than a tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on borrowed and hand-chosen components: the BPR localization module from prior work, a 64-slice volume extent chosen by the authors, and a generative prior learned from a single-center training set. No new physical quantities or entities are introduced; the main epistemic load is carried by the generalization assumptions for BPR and the diffusion prior, plus the reliance on an external segmentation tool for evaluation.

free parameters (3)

Ntotal (number of slices in generated volume) = 64
Chosen to cover approximately 20 cm at 3 mm slice thickness; defines the axial extent of the generated volume and the denominator of the volume-based ratios, directly affecting the reported error rates.
VAE latent space dimension = 4096
Selected to compress each 2D slice into a fixed-size code; affects the capacity of the representation and the difficulty of the diffusion process, but is not fitted to body composition outcomes.
Number of conditioning slices in the main experiment = 2
The headline 15.2% error is tied to this specific two-slice condition; the ablation shows error decreases with more slices, so the headline result depends on this design choice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The BPR module from Tang et al. (2021) provides accurate slice-location scores across different people and scanners when mapped through a reference whole-body CT atlas.
Section 2.1 relies on BPR scores to select the starting slice, determine slice ordering, and compute Nbetween; an incorrect mapping would corrupt the geometry of the generated volume.
domain assumption The 323-subject training set is representative of the test population, so the learned prior over abdominal anatomy generalizes to held-out patients.
The latent diffusion model is trained on a single dataset; if the test set differs in scanner, body habitus, or pathology, the generated tissue distributions may not preserve fat and muscle composition.
standard math Diffusion and VAE training follow established theory (Ho et al., Rombach et al.), assumed correct for the stated task.
The paper adopts the standard LDM formulation without re-deriving it; the central claim depends on the correctness of these background methods.
domain assumption TotalSegmentator provides accurate segmentation of fat and muscle on both real and synthetic CT volumes, and the error metric is unbiased.
The quantitative evaluation in Section 3.1 computes ratios from TotalSegmentator labels; if segmentation quality differs between real and synthetic images, the error rates are confounded.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Body Composition Analysis by Generating 3D CT Volumes from Limited 2D Slices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NA5PWH5T

@misc{pith2026250113071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Body Composition Analysis by Generating 3D CT Volumes from Limited 2D Slices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NA5PWH5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13071}
}

read the original abstract

Body composition analysis provides valuable insights into aging, disease progression, and overall health conditions. Due to concerns of radiation exposure, two-dimensional (2D) single-slice computed tomography (CT) imaging has been used repeatedly for body composition analysis. However, this approach introduces significant spatial variability that can impact the accuracy and robustness of the analysis. To mitigate this issue and facilitate body composition analysis, this paper presents a novel method to generate 3D CT volumes from limited number of 2D slices using a latent diffusion model (LDM). Our approach first maps 2D slices into a latent representation space using a variational autoencoder. An LDM is then trained to capture the 3D context of a stack of these latent representations. To accurately interpolate intermediateslices and construct a full 3D volume, we utilize body part regression to determine the spatial location and distance between the acquired slices. Experiments on both in-house and public 3D abdominal CT datasets demonstrate that the proposed method significantly enhances body composition analysis compared to traditional 2D-based analysis, with a reduced error rate from 23.3% to 15.2%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13071 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The diagram illustrates two key modules: Body part regression (BPR) and latent diffusion model (LDM). The BPR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** During training, the preprocessed images are first encoded into a latent space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: synthetic 3D volume conditioned on a top and bottom slice with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Body composition techniques,

Kuriyan, R., “Body composition techniques,” Indian Journal of Medical Research 148(5), 648–658 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

Influence of body weight on bone mass, architecture and turnover,

Iwaniec, U. T. and Turner, R. T., “Influence of body weight on bone mass, architecture and turnover,” Journal of Endocrinology 230(3), R115–R130 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Ai body composition in lung cancer screening: added value beyond lung cancer detection,

Xu, K., Khan, M. S., Li, T. Z., Gao, R., Terry, J. G., Huo, Y., Lasko, T. A., Carr, J. J., Maldonado, F., Landman, B. A., et al., “Ai body composition in lung cancer screening: added value beyond lung cancer detection,” Radiology 308(1), e222937 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

The prevalence and prognostic value of low muscle mass in cancer patients: a review of the literature,

Rier, H. N., Jager, A., Sleijfer, S., Maier, A. B., and Levin, M.-D., “The prevalence and prognostic value of low muscle mass in cancer patients: a review of the literature,” The Oncologist 21(11), 1396–1409 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Update on obesity and obesity paradox in heart failure,

Lavie, C. J., Sharma, A., Alpert, M. A., De Schutter, A., Lopez-Jimenez, F., Milani, R. V., and Ventura, H. O., “Update on obesity and obesity paradox in heart failure,” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 58(4), 393–400 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Body composition in type 2 diabetes: change in quality and not just quantity that matters,

Solanki, J. D., Makwana, A. H., Mehta, H. B., Gokhale, P. A., and Shah, C. J., “Body composition in type 2 diabetes: change in quality and not just quantity that matters,” International Journal of Preventive Medicine 6(1), 122 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Sarcopenia and the analysis of body composition,

Ribeiro, S. M. and Kehayias, J. J., “Sarcopenia and the analysis of body composition,” Advances in Nutrition 5(3), 260–267 (2014)

work page 2014
[8]

Body composition in clinical practice,

Andreoli, A., Garaci, F., Cafarelli, F. P., and Guglielmi, G., “Body composition in clinical practice,” European Journal of Radiology 85(8), 1461–1468 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 24 references

[9]

Advanced body composition assessment: from body mass index to body composition profiling,

Borga, M., West, J., Bell, J. D., Harvey, N. C., Romu, T., Heymsfield, S. B., and Dahlqvist Leinhard, O., “Advanced body composition assessment: from body mass index to body composition profiling,” Journal of Investigative Medicine 66(5), 1–9 (2018)

2018
[10]

Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry body composition reference values from nhanes,

Kelly, T. L., Wilson, K. E., and Heymsfield, S. B., “Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry body composition reference values from nhanes,” PloS one 4(9), e7038 (2009)

2009
[11]

Bioelectrical impedance analysis: body composition in children and adolescents with down syndrome.,

Bongiolo, A., Castro, K., da Silva, M., et al., “Bioelectrical impedance analysis: body composition in children and adolescents with down syndrome.,” Minerva Pediatrica 69(6), 560–563 (2017)

2017
[12]

The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA): A 50-year-long journey and plans for the future,

Ferrucci, L., “The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA): A 50-year-long journey and plans for the future,” (2008)

2008
[13]

Reducing positional variance in cross-sectional abdominal ct slices with deep conditional generative models,

Yu, X., Yang, Q., Tang, Y., Gao, R., Bao, S., Cai, L. Y., Lee, H. H., Huo, Y., Moore, A. Z., Ferrucci, L., et al., “Reducing positional variance in cross-sectional abdominal ct slices with deep conditional generative models,” in [International Conference on Medical Image Compu...

2022
[14]

Body part regression with self-supervision,

Tang, Y., Gao, R., Han, S., Chen, Y., Gao, D., Nath, V., Bermudez, C., Savona, M. R., Bao, S., Lyu, I., et al., “Body part regression with self-supervision,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40(5), 1499– 1507 (2021)

2021
[15]

High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., and Ommer, B., “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” in [Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition], 10684–10695 (2022)

2022
[16]

Auto-encoding variational bayes,

Kingma, D. P. and Welling, M., “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013)

2013 arXiv
[17]

Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

Ho, J., Jain, A., and Abbeel, P., “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33, 6840–6851 (2020)

2020
[18]

Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

Nichol, A. Q. and Dhariwal, P., “Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in [International Conference on Machine Learning], 8162–8171, PMLR (2021)

2021
[19]

Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

Lugmayr, A., Danelljan, M., Romero, A., Yu, F., Timofte, R., and Van Gool, L., “Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in [Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition], 11461–11471 (2022)

2022
[20]

Monai: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare,

Cardoso, M. J., Li, W., Brown, R., Ma, N., Kerfoot, E., Wang, Y., Murrey, B., Myronenko, A., Zhao, C., Yang, D., et al., “Monai: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02701 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[21]

U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., and Brox, T., “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in [Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention], 234–241, Springer (2015)

2015
[22]

TotalSegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in CT images,

Wasserthal, J., Breit, H.-C., Meyer, M. T., Pradella, M., Hinck, D., Sauter, A. W., Heye, T., Boll, D. T., Cyriac, J., Yang, S., et al., “TotalSegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in CT images,” Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5) (2023)

2023
[23]

Disentangling a single MR modality

Zuo, L., Liu, Y., Xue, Y., Han, S., Bilgel, M., Resnick, S. M., ... & Carass, A. (2022, September). “Disentangling a single MR modality.” In MICCAI Workshop on Data Augmentation, Labelling, and Imperfections (pp. 54-63). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland

2022
[24]

Synthesizing realistic brain MR images with noise control

Zuo, L., Dewey, B. E., Carass, A., He, Y., Shao, M., Reinhold, J. C., & Prince, J. L. (2020). “Synthesizing realistic brain MR images with noise control.” In Simulation and Synthesis in Medical Imaging: 5th International Workshop, SASHIMI 2020, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI ...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Body composition techniques,

Kuriyan, R., “Body composition techniques,” Indian Journal of Medical Research 148(5), 648–658 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Influence of body weight on bone mass, architecture and turnover,

Iwaniec, U. T. and Turner, R. T., “Influence of body weight on bone mass, architecture and turnover,” Journal of Endocrinology 230(3), R115–R130 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Ai body composition in lung cancer screening: added value beyond lung cancer detection,

Xu, K., Khan, M. S., Li, T. Z., Gao, R., Terry, J. G., Huo, Y., Lasko, T. A., Carr, J. J., Maldonado, F., Landman, B. A., et al., “Ai body composition in lung cancer screening: added value beyond lung cancer detection,” Radiology 308(1), e222937 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

The prevalence and prognostic value of low muscle mass in cancer patients: a review of the literature,

Rier, H. N., Jager, A., Sleijfer, S., Maier, A. B., and Levin, M.-D., “The prevalence and prognostic value of low muscle mass in cancer patients: a review of the literature,” The Oncologist 21(11), 1396–1409 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Update on obesity and obesity paradox in heart failure,

Lavie, C. J., Sharma, A., Alpert, M. A., De Schutter, A., Lopez-Jimenez, F., Milani, R. V., and Ventura, H. O., “Update on obesity and obesity paradox in heart failure,” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 58(4), 393–400 (2016)

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Body composition in type 2 diabetes: change in quality and not just quantity that matters,

Solanki, J. D., Makwana, A. H., Mehta, H. B., Gokhale, P. A., and Shah, C. J., “Body composition in type 2 diabetes: change in quality and not just quantity that matters,” International Journal of Preventive Medicine 6(1), 122 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Sarcopenia and the analysis of body composition,

Ribeiro, S. M. and Kehayias, J. J., “Sarcopenia and the analysis of body composition,” Advances in Nutrition 5(3), 260–267 (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Body composition in clinical practice,

Andreoli, A., Garaci, F., Cafarelli, F. P., and Guglielmi, G., “Body composition in clinical practice,” European Journal of Radiology 85(8), 1461–1468 (2016)

work page 2016