A new method for calculating the volume of primary tissue types in live sheep using computed tomography scanning
C. L. Alston A C , K. L. Mengersen A and G. E. Gardner BA School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia.
B School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: c.alston@qut.edu.au
Animal Production Science 49(11) 1035-1042 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN09038
Submitted: 6 March 2009 Accepted: 18 May 2009 Published: 14 October 2009
Abstract
Interest in the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning in animal experimentation has increased markedly over the last decade due to the benefits of studying tissue in live subjects over time. In these experiments, the non-carcass components of the scan are removed from the collected data, allowing scientists to study the carcass of a live animal without the need to slaughter the individual. However, there is not yet a consensus regarding the most appropriate manner in which to convert the CT numbers into a meaningful estimate of area, volume or proportion of tissue present in a carcass at the time of scanning. In this paper we use a Bayesian mixture model to estimate the area of each of three tissue types of interest, fat, muscle and bone present in individual CT scan slices. We then use the Cavalieri principle to estimate the volume and proportion of the carcass attributable to each of these tissues. The approach is validated by analysis of experimental sheep carcasses.
Additional keywords: Bayesian mixture model, Cavalieri method, trapezoidal rule.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Kelly Pearce for providing the chemical composition values and Ms Neroli Smith for her involvement with collating and editing CT images. We also acknowledge Meat and Livestock Australia for their original funding of the project that has made this data available.
Alston CL,
Mengersen KL,
Thompson JM,
Littlefield PJ,
Perry D, Ball AJ
(2004) Statistical analysis of sheep CAT scan images using a Bayesian mixture model. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55(1), 57–68.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Alston CL,
Mengersen KL,
Thompson JM,
Littlefield PJ,
Perry D, Ball AJ
(2005) Extending the Bayesian mixture model to incorporate spatial information in analysing sheep CAT scan images. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56(4), 373–388.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Alston CL,
Mengersen KL,
Robert CP,
Thompson JM,
Littlefield PJ,
Perry D, Ball AJ
(2007) Bayesian mixture models in a longitudinal setting for analysing sheep CAT scan images. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51(9), 4282–4296.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ball AJ,
Thompson JM,
Alston CL,
Blakely AR, Hinch GN
(1998) Changes in maintenance energy requirements of mature sheep fed at different levels of feed intake at maintenance, weight loss and realimentation. Livestock Production Science 53, 191–204.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brenøe UT, Kolstad K
(2000) Body composition and development measured repeatedly by computer tomography during growth in two types of turkeys. Poultry Science 79, 546–552.
| PubMed |
Glasbey CA, Young MJ
(2002) Maximum a posteriori estimation of image boundaries by dynamic programming. Applied Statistics 51, 209–221.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gundersen HJG, Jensen EB
(1987) The efficiency of systematic sampling in sterology and its prediction. Journal of Microscopy 147(3), 229–263.
|
CAS |
PubMed |
Gundersen HJG,
Bendtsen TF,
Korbo L,
Marcussen N, Møller A , et al.
(1988) Some new, simple and efficient stereological methods and their use in pathological research and diagnosis. APMIS 96(5), 379–394.
|
CAS |
Crossref |
PubMed |
Jopson NB,
Thompson JM, Fennessy PF
(1997) Tissue mobilisation rates in male fallow deer (Dama dama) as determined by computed tomography: the effects of natural and enforced food restriction. Animal Science 65, 311–320.
Kass RE, Raftery AE
(1995) Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90(430), 773–795.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kolstad K
(2001) Fat deposition and distribution measured by computer tomography in three genetic groups of pigs. Livestock Production Science 67, 281–292.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kvame T, Vangen O
(2007) Selection for lean weight based on ultrasound and CT in a meat line of sheep. Livestock Science 106, 232–242.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Navajas EA,
Glasbey CA,
McLean KA,
Fisher AV,
Charteris AJL,
Lambe NR,
Bünger L, Simm G
(2006) In vivo measurements of muscle volume by automatic image analysis of spiral computed tomography scans. Animal Science 82, 545–553.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Potts RB
(1952) Some generalized order-disorder transitions. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 48, 106–109.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rosen GD, Harry JD
(1990) Brain volume estimation from serial section measurements: a comparison of methodologies. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 35(2), 115–124.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
PubMed |
Rydén T, Titterington DM
(1998) Computational Bayesian analysis of hidden Markov models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 7(2), 194–211.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson JM, Atkins KD
(1980) Use of carcase measurements to predict percentage carcase composition in crossbred lambs. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research and Animal Husbandry 20, 144–150.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson J, Kinghorn B
(1992) CATMAN – A program to measure CAT-scans for prediction of body components in live animals. Proceedings of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics 10, 560–564.
