Sentence examples for muscle attenuation values from inspiring English sources
However, the non-faller group had higher muscle attenuation values for most muscles compared with the faller group (p < 0.05, Figure 2).
(2013) reported markedly shorter overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who exhibited skeletal muscle attenuation values below the median.
A poor prognosis and different types of morbidity are predicted by the presence of reduced mean muscle attenuation values in patients with these conditions; however, the biological features of muscle with these characteristics require further investigation.
By contrast to these influences that tend to lower muscle attenuation values, strength or endurance training as well as surgical correction of bone/joint conditions can partly reverse the effects of deconditioning on muscle attenuation.
A total of 57 articles reporting quantification of skeletal muscle radiation attenuation values were reviewed.
18 They reported that low CT attenuation values for muscle were associated with lower muscle strength in elderly adults (>65 years old) and that the association between CT attenuation value and muscle strength was independent of muscle size.
However, we mitigated these differences by a normalization of tumour attenuation values to muscle, a strictly intraindividual comparison of values and the use of a standardized CT protocol.
The basis of this predictive value of muscle attenuation for survival is unknown.
In the non-faller group, Gluteus Medius/Minimus and Adductors had significantly higher muscle attenuation than Gluteus Maximus but lower values than all other muscles (p < 0.0024).
The benefit of a defined range of attenuation values for both muscle and adipose tissue alongside a standardized approach would enable comparison between various studies.
TLCO % pred was a stronger predictor of fibre shift than percentage intramuscular fat and skeletal muscle attenuation, with area under the curve (AUC) values (95% CI) of 0.825 (0.709 0.940) and 0.648 (0.7494 0.802), respectively (fig. 4).
