Ultrasound and MRI measured changes in muscle mass gives different estimates but similar conclusions: a Bayesian approach

Article metrics


The purpose of this paper was to use a Bayesian approach to compare the relative change in muscle size between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound measured muscle thickness (MTH) following 6 weeks of concentric and eccentric blood flow restricted exercise. Changes at each site were as follows: concentric 50% site (MRI: 10.2%, MTH: 8.7%), concentric 10 cm site (MRI: 12%, MTH: 4.5%), eccentric 50% site (MRI: −1.7%, MTH: 2.6%), and eccentric 10 cm site (MRI: 5.2%, MTH: 0.5%). When testing the difference between estimates using a default prior of 0.707, we provided evidence that the estimate at the 50% site of the concentric arm was similar between ultrasound and MRI [Median % (95% credible interval): −1.1 (−8.2, 5.8)]. However, evidence for other sites suggested differences or a degree of uncertainty. Both methods produce similar conclusions about the presence of growth but the magnitude of that change appears different at most sites.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. 1.

    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39:412–23.

  2. 2.

    Abe T, Kawakami Y, Suzuki Y, Gunji A, Fukunaga T. Effects of 20 days bed rest on muscle morphology. J Gravit Physiol. 1997;4:S10–14.

  3. 3.

    Dupont AC, Sauerbrei EE, Fenton PV, Shragge PC, Loeb GE, Richmond FJ. Real-time sonography to estimate muscle thickness: comparison with MRI and CT. J Clin Ultrasound. 2001;29:230–6.

  4. 4.

    Franchi MV, Longo S, Mallinson J, Quinlan JI, Taylor T, Greenhaff PL, et al. Muscle thickness correlates to muscle cross-sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:846–53.

  5. 5.

    Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Bell ZW, et al. Changes in muscle size via MRI and ultrasound: Are they equivalent? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:1467–8.

  6. 6.

    Wagenmakers EJ, Love J, Marsman M, Jamil T, Ly A, Verhagen J, et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25:58–76.

  7. 7.

    Wagenmakers EJ, Marsman M, Jamil T, Ly A, Verhagen J, Love J, et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25:35–57.

  8. 8.

    Yasuda T, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Abe T. Effects of blood flow restricted low-intensity concentric or eccentric training on muscle size and strength. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e52843.

  9. 9.

    Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, Garzarella L. Time course for strength and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000;81:174–80.

  10. 10.

    Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, Price TB, Hoffman EP, Angelopoulos TJ, et al. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:964–72. (6).

Download references

Author information

JPL: study design, performed statistical analysis, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafting of the manuscript; and SJD, ZWB, RWS, TA, TY: study design, interpretation of the data, and the drafting of the manuscript.

Correspondence to Jeremy P. Loenneke.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark