New ultrasonography-based method for predicting total skeletal muscle mass in male athletes

Abstract

[Purpose] This study aimed 1) to assess whether a prediction model for whole body skeletal muscle mass that is based on a sedentary population is applicable to young male athletes, and 2) to develop a new skeletal muscle mass prediction model for young male athletes. [Subjects and Methods] The skeletal muscle mass of 61 male athletes was measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and estimated using a previous prediction model (Sanada et al., 2006) with B-mode ultrasonography. The prediction model was not suitable for young male athletes, as a significant difference was observed between the means of the estimated and MRI-measured skeletal muscle mass. Next, the same subjects were randomly assigned to a development or validation group, and a new model specifically relevant to young male athletes was developed based on MRI and ultrasound data obtained from the development group. [Results] A strong correlation was observed between the skeletal muscle mass estimated by the new model and the MRI-measured skeletal muscle mass (r=0.96) in the validation group, without significant difference between their means. No bias was found in the new model using Bland-Altman analysis (r=−0.25). [Conclusion] These results validate the new model and suggest that ultrasonography is a reliable method for measuring skeletal muscle mass in young male athletes.

Validity of ultrasonography derived predictions for estimating skeletal muscle volume- A systematic literature review

“…The results of the present review showed good correlations generally across the included studies which are in line with previous reviews by Abe et al (39,40). The SEE varied between 6-25.6% (Table 2) Eight studies did further analysis by using a Bland-Altman plot and all of those plotted against the average (25,29,30,32,33,35,36,38). Whether to plot against the average or against the reference is debatable (43,44).…”

“…Regressions and measured segments are presented in Table 2. Eight studies did further analysis with a Bland-Altman plot (25,29,30,32,33,35,36,38) and they found no systematic errors.…”

“…All together the studies included 591 subjects. Five studies included only men (9,(32)(33)(34)(35). Four studies included both men and women (25,(36)(37)(38).…”

“…Nakatani et al 2016 found that prediction equations developed for young adults were not valid for middle-aged and older men and women (38). Toda et al 2016 investigated if prediction equations derived from a sedentary population was applicable for young male athletes, reporting it not to be valid in this population (35). It is important to recognize which population the prediction equations have been developed from, if the equations are to be used in the clinic.…”

“…(29,35,36) although when total body estimates were excluded from the Bland-Altman, two studies remained(29,36) Midorikawa et al 2009. tested the equation derived fromSanada et al 2006 and a total of eleven segments were plotted against the average(Figure 2 B).…”