Development of a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-derived body volume equation in Hispanic adults for administering a four-compartment model

Nickerson, Brett S.; Fedewa, Michael V.; McLester, Cherilyn N.; McLester, John R.; Esco, Michael R.

doi:10.1017/s0007114520000598

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equation 7is identical in form to the basic body volume model presented in 1). 20 The most recent DXA volume prediction equation was reported by Nickerson et al 17 in 2020 (Table 1). The aim of these previous studies was to use DXA-derived total body volume estimates in multicomponent density models as an alternative to either ADP or UWW body volume estimates.…”

Section: Empirical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicomponent density models for body composition: Review of the dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry volume approach

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate and precise body composition estimates, notably of total body adiposity, are a vital component of in vivo physiology and metabolic studies. The reference against which other body composition approaches are usually validated or calibrated is the family of methods referred to as multicomponent "body density" models.These models quantify three to six components by combining measurements of body mass, body volume, total body water, and osseous mineral mass. Body mass is measured with calibrated scales, volume with underwater weighing or air-displacement plethysmography, total body water with isotope dilution, and osseous mineral mass by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Body density is then calculated for use in model as body mass/volume. Studies over the past decade introduced a new approach to quantifying body volume that relies on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements, an advance that simplifies multicomponent density model development by eliminating the need for underwater weighing or air-displacement plethysmography systems when these technologies are unavailable and makes these methods more accessible to research and clinical programs. This review critically examines these new dual-energy X-ray approaches for quantifying body volume and density, explores their shortcomings, suggests alternative derivation approaches, and introduces ideas for potential future research studies.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicomponent density models for body composition: Review of the dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry volume approach

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, the utilisation of DXA-derived body volumes (BV) has allowed for a 'rapid' four-component (4C) model using only BM estimates, a DXA scan and a simple bioelectrical impedance assessment (16)(17)(18) . While the utilisation of bioimpedance techniques is generally viewed as acceptable, particularly given the grossly disparate time required for assessment of TBW via dilution (hours for collection, followed by subsequent laboratory analysis) as compared with bioimpedance (minutes, with data immediately available), the utilisation of DXA-derived BV is less established, although a growing number of researchers have examined its use within a rapid 4C model (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Five-component model validation of reference, laboratory and field methods of body composition assessment

Tinsley

2020

Br J Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reports the validity of body fat percentage (BF%) estimates from several commonly employed techniques as compared to a 5-component (5C) model criterion. Healthy adults (n=170) were assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), multiple bioimpedance techniques, and optical scanning. Output was also used to produce a criterion 5C model, multiple variants of 3- and 4-component models (3C; 4C), and anthropometry-based BF% estimates. Linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing were performed alongside evaluation of the constant error (CE), total error (TE), standard error of the estimate (SEE), and coefficient of determination (R2). The major findings were: 1) Differences between 5C, 4C, and 3C models utilizing the same body volume (BV) and total body water (TBW) estimates are negligible (CE≤0.2%; SEE<0.5%; TE≤0.5%; R2=1.00; 95% limits of agreement [LOA]≤0.9%); 2) Moderate errors from alternate TBW or BV estimates in multi-component models were observed (CE≤1.3%; SEE≤2.1%; TE≤2.2%; R2≥0.95; 95% LOA≤4.2%); 3) Small differences between alternate DXA (i.e., tissue vs. region) and ADP (i.e., Siri vs. Brozek equations) estimates were observed, and both techniques generally performed well (CE<3.0%; SEE≤2.3%; TE≤3.6%; R2≥0.88; 95% LOA≤4.8%); 4) Bioimpedance technologies performed well but exhibited larger individual-level errors (CE<1.0%; SEE≤3.1%; TE≤3.3%; R2≥0.94; 95% LOA≤6.2%); and 5) Anthropometric equations generally performed poorly (CE:0.6 to 5.7%; SEE≤5.1%; TE≤7.4%; R2≥0.67; 95% LOA≤10.6%). Collectively, the data presented in this manuscript can aid researchers and clinicians in selecting an appropriate body composition assessment method and understanding the associated errors when compared to a reference multi-component model.

show abstract

Proportional bias of multifrequency bioimpedance analysis is larger in Hispanic females than males

Nickerson¹,

Snarr²

2022

Nutrition Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development of a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-derived body volume equation in Hispanic adults for administering a four-compartment model

Cited by 5 publications

References 45 publications

Multicomponent density models for body composition: Review of the dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry volume approach

Multicomponent density models for body composition: Review of the dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry volume approach

Five-component model validation of reference, laboratory and field methods of body composition assessment

Proportional bias of multifrequency bioimpedance analysis is larger in Hispanic females than males

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About