4.5 Review

Epicardial and pericardial fat analysis on CT images and artificial intelligence: a literature review

期刊

QUANTITATIVE IMAGING IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 2075-2089

出版社

AME PUBLISHING COMPANY
DOI: 10.21037/qims-21-945

关键词

Obesity; artificial intelligence (AI); adipose tissue; cardiac computed tomography (cardiac CT); metabolic syndrome (MetS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes the evidence on AI algorithms for segmentation of epicardial and pericardial adipose tissues on CT images. AI analysis of adipose tissue can provide important information for physicians, potentially improving patient quality of life and identifying patients at risk of various disorders.
The present review summarizes the available evidence on artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms aimed to the segmentation of epicardial and pericardial adipose tissues on computed tomography (CT) images. Body composition imaging is a novel concept based on quantitative analysis of body tissues. Manual segmentation of medical images allows to obtain quantitative and qualitative data on several tissues including epicardial and pericardial fat. However, since manual segmentation requires a considerable amount of time, the analysis of adipose tissue compartments based on AI has been proposed as an automatic, reliable, accurate and fast tool. The literature research was performed on March 2021 using MEDLINE PubMed Central and adipose tissue artificial intelligence, adipose tissue deep learning or adipose tissue machine learning as keywords for articles search. Relevant articles concerning epicardial adipose tissue, pericardial adipose tissue and AI were selected. The evaluation of adipose tissue compartments can provide additional information on the pathogenesis and prognosis of several diseases, including cardiovascular. AI can assist physicians to obtain important information, possibly improving the patient's quality of life and identifying patients at risk of developing variable disorders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据