Abdominal CT Opportunistic Screening: Comparison of body composition measures between a Kenyan patient cohort and a matched UW cohort using artificial intelligence tools

Author

Lu Mao

Published

August 29, 2025

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were summarized using counts and percentages, while continuous variables were summarized using means and standard deviations. The differences between cohorts were assessed using the Cho-squared test for categorical variables and the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test for continuous variables. All analyses were performed using R version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, 2022).

Results

Tables

Comparisons of demographics and body composition measures between the cohorts are shown in the tables below.

Table 1: Comparison of body composition measures between 6 cohorts
Characteristic Tenwek, N = 1,6541 UW African American, N = 1,6521 UW white American, N = 16,5401 MGB African American, N = 1,6541 MGB white American, N = 16,5401 p-value2
Patient Age 54 (18) 54 (18) 54 (18) 54 (18) 54 (18) >0.9
Patient Sex




0.2
    F 768 (46%) 816 (49%) 7,680 (46%) 757 (46%) 7,750 (47%)
    M 886 (54%) 836 (51%) 8,860 (54%) 897 (54%) 8,790 (53%)
IVContrast_IVContrastPresent 1,439 (87%) 1,068 (65%) 10,343 (63%) 1,234 (75%) 12,848 (78%) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3VATArea 64 (69) 137 (114) 175 (134) 127 (103) 159 (128) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3SATArea 97 (107) 241 (164) 221 (132) 227 (151) 216 (129) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3TATArea 162 (165) 382 (241) 399 (227) 357 (219) 378 (218) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3VATSATRatio 0.99 (1.16) 0.65 (0.50) 0.87 (0.70) 0.65 (0.53) 0.80 (0.93) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3VATMedian -99 (27) -89 (15) -90 (12) -90 (14) -91 (13) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_MuscleValues_L3MuscleArea 117 (31) 161 (44) 157 (42) 157 (41) 153 (41) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_MuscleValues_L3MuscleMeanHU 31 (14) 34 (18) 30 (18) 29 (18) 28 (18) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_BMDValues_BMDStandardHU 173 (64) 184 (52) 164 (50) 187 (54) 165 (53) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_CalciumScoring_AbdominalAgatston 330 (1,459) 904 (2,574) 1,335 (3,416) 660 (2,331) 1,156 (3,050) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_KidneyValues_KidneyVolume 247 (74) 391 (132) 403 (135) 389 (129) 410 (125) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_SpleenValues_SpleenVolume 185 (172) 173 (139) 404 (3,535) 198 (1,181) 411 (3,679) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_LiverValues_LiverHU 48 (10) 54 (19) 53 (20) 52 (10) 51 (11) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_LiverValues_LiverVolume 1,177 (561) 1,498 (634) 1,591 (711) 1,516 (703) 1,612 (723) <0.001
L1 trabecular bone attenuation (HU) 173 (64) 184 (52) 163 (48) 187 (54) 165 (49) <0.001
Abdominal aortic Agatston score 330 (1,459) 904 (2,574) 1,335 (3,416) 660 (2,331) 1,156 (3,050) <0.001
L3 skeletal muscle attenuation (HU) 31 (14) 33 (17) 30 (17) 29 (18) 28 (18) <0.001
L3 skeletal muscle area (cm2) 117 (31) 161 (43) 157 (42) 157 (40) 153 (40) <0.001
Liver attenuation (HU) 48 (10) 53 (9) 51 (11) 52 (10) 51 (11) <0.001
Liver volume (ml) 1,177 (549) 1,538 (590) 1,639 (658) 1,489 (601) 1,591 (628) <0.001
Spleen attenuation (HU) 90 (27) 85 (36) 83 (34) 88 (35) 92 (34) <0.001
Spleen volume (ml) 187 (172) 175 (139) 261 (184) 170 (130) 258 (186) <0.001
L3 TAT area (cm2) 166 (165) 380 (237) 399 (226) 357 (219) 378 (218) <0.001
L3 VAT area (cm2) 45 (91) 137 (109) 175 (134) 127 (103) 159 (128) <0.001
L3 SAT area (cm2) 97 (107) 241 (162) 221 (132) 227 (151) 216 (129) <0.001
L3 VAT attenuation (HU) -94 (13) -88 (10) -90 (10) -88 (10) -90 (10) <0.001
VAT to SAT Ratio 1.02 (1.17) 0.65 (0.50) 0.86 (0.68) 0.65 (0.53) 0.79 (0.66) <0.001
Kidney attenuation (HU) 109 (40) 100 (57) 95 (56) 108 (54) 108 (50) <0.001
Kidney volume (ml) 249 (68) 392 (113) 401 (114) 388 (115) 406 (110) <0.001
1 Mean (SD); n (%)
2 Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test
Table 2: Comparison of body composition measures between 4 cohorts
Characteristic Tenwek, N = 1,6541 US African American, N = 3,3061 US White American, N = 33,0801 p-value2
Patient Age 54 (18) 54 (18) 54 (18) 0.8
Patient Sex


0.6
    F 768 (46%) 1,573 (48%) 15,430 (47%)
    M 886 (54%) 1,733 (52%) 17,650 (53%)
IVContrast_IVContrastPresent 1,439 (87%) 2,302 (70%) 23,191 (70%) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3VATArea 64 (69) 132 (109) 167 (131) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3SATArea 97 (107) 234 (158) 219 (131) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3TATArea 162 (165) 369 (231) 388 (223) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3VATSATRatio 0.99 (1.16) 0.65 (0.51) 0.83 (0.83) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_FatValues_L3VATMedian -99 (27) -89 (14) -90 (13) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_MuscleValues_L3MuscleArea 117 (31) 159 (42) 155 (41) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_MuscleValues_L3MuscleMeanHU 31 (14) 31 (18) 29 (18) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_BMDValues_BMDStandardHU 173 (64) 186 (53) 164 (51) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_CalciumScoring_AbdominalAgatston 330 (1,459) 780 (2,456) 1,243 (3,236) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_KidneyValues_KidneyVolume 247 (74) 390 (131) 406 (130) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_SpleenValues_SpleenVolume 185 (172) 186 (844) 407 (3,608) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_LiverValues_LiverHU 48 (10) 53 (15) 52 (16) <0.001
ContrastCorrected_LiverValues_LiverVolume 1,177 (561) 1,507 (669) 1,601 (717) <0.001
L1 trabecular bone attenuation (HU) 173 (64) 186 (53) 164 (49) <0.001
Abdominal aortic Agatston score 330 (1,459) 780 (2,456) 1,243 (3,236) <0.001
L3 skeletal muscle attenuation (HU) 31 (14) 31 (18) 29 (18) <0.001
L3 skeletal muscle area (cm2) 117 (31) 159 (42) 155 (41) <0.001
Liver attenuation (HU) 48 (10) 52 (10) 51 (11) <0.001
Liver volume (ml) 1,177 (549) 1,513 (596) 1,615 (644) <0.001
Spleen attenuation (HU) 90 (27) 86 (35) 88 (34) 0.070
Spleen volume (ml) 187 (172) 172 (134) 260 (185) <0.001
L3 TAT area (cm2) 166 (165) 369 (228) 388 (222) <0.001
L3 VAT area (cm2) 45 (91) 132 (106) 167 (131) <0.001
L3 SAT area (cm2) 97 (107) 234 (157) 219 (131) <0.001
L3 VAT attenuation (HU) -94 (13) -88 (10) -90 (10) <0.001
VAT to SAT Ratio 1.02 (1.17) 0.65 (0.51) 0.83 (0.67) <0.001
Kidney attenuation (HU) 109 (40) 104 (55) 102 (53) 0.002
Kidney volume (ml) 249 (68) 390 (114) 403 (112) <0.001
1 Mean (SD); n (%)
2 Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test

Figures

Boxplots for the variables of interest are shown below (outliers are suppressed).

Figure 1: Boxplots of body composition measures by Cohort (I)
Figure 2: Boxplots of body composition measures by Cohort (II)