Roberto D Sainz1, Alessandro Urlando. 1. Department of Animal Science, the University of California, Davis, 95616-8521, USA. rdsainz@ucdavis.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body-composition assessment reflects infant growth and nutritional status but is limited by practical considerations, accuracy, and safety. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the precision and accuracy of a new air-displacement plethysmography (ADP) system for pediatric body-composition assessment. DESIGN: We used 24 phantoms constructed from bovine lean muscle and fat. The phantoms varied in mass (1.3894-9.9516 kg) and percentage fat (%Fat; 2.08-34.40%), thereby representing infants between birth and 6 mo of age. Estimates of %Fat obtained with chemical analysis (CA), hydrostatic weighing, and ADP were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between %Fat measured with ADP (%Fat(ADP)) and %Fat measured with CA (%Fat(CA)); the mean values were 18.55% and 18.59%, respectively. SDs for %Fat(ADP) and %Fat(CA) were not significantly different (0.70% and 0.73%, respectively). %Fat measurements obtained with ADP, CA, and hydrostatic weighing were highly correlated (r > 0.99, P < 0.0001). The regression equation (%Fat(CA) = 0.996%Fat(ADP) + 0.119; SEE = 0.600; adjusted R(2) = 0.997; P < 0.0001) did not differ significantly from the line of identity (%Fat(CA) = %Fat(ADP)). There was high agreement between individual measurements of %Fat(ADP) and %Fat(CA), as shown by the narrow 95% limits of agreements between methods (-1.22% to 1.13%), and there was no systematic bias in individual differences across the phantom mass and %Fat ranges. CONCLUSION: ADP provides a highly precise and accurate estimate of %Fat in bovine tissue phantoms in the pediatric ranges of body weight and body fatness.
BACKGROUND: Body-composition assessment reflects infant growth and nutritional status but is limited by practical considerations, accuracy, and safety. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the precision and accuracy of a new air-displacement plethysmography (ADP) system for pediatric body-composition assessment. DESIGN: We used 24 phantoms constructed from bovine lean muscle and fat. The phantoms varied in mass (1.3894-9.9516 kg) and percentage fat (%Fat; 2.08-34.40%), thereby representing infants between birth and 6 mo of age. Estimates of %Fat obtained with chemical analysis (CA), hydrostatic weighing, and ADP were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between %Fat measured with ADP (%Fat(ADP)) and %Fat measured with CA (%Fat(CA)); the mean values were 18.55% and 18.59%, respectively. SDs for %Fat(ADP) and %Fat(CA) were not significantly different (0.70% and 0.73%, respectively). %Fat measurements obtained with ADP, CA, and hydrostatic weighing were highly correlated (r > 0.99, P < 0.0001). The regression equation (%Fat(CA) = 0.996%Fat(ADP) + 0.119; SEE = 0.600; adjusted R(2) = 0.997; P < 0.0001) did not differ significantly from the line of identity (%Fat(CA) = %Fat(ADP)). There was high agreement between individual measurements of %Fat(ADP) and %Fat(CA), as shown by the narrow 95% limits of agreements between methods (-1.22% to 1.13%), and there was no systematic bias in individual differences across the phantom mass and %Fat ranges. CONCLUSION:ADP provides a highly precise and accurate estimate of %Fat in bovine tissue phantoms in the pediatric ranges of body weight and body fatness.
Authors: L A Barbour; T L Hernandez; R M Reynolds; M S Reece; C Chartier-Logan; M K Anderson; T Kelly; J E Friedman; R E Van Pelt Journal: Pediatr Obes Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Laura M Breij; Marieke Abrahamse-Berkeveld; Dennis Acton; Emanuella De Lucia Rolfe; Ken K Ong; Anita C S Hokken-Koelega Journal: Ann Nutr Metab Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 3.374
Authors: Shu-E Soh; See Ling Loy; Evelyn Xiu Ling Loo; Sharon Ng; Mya Thway Tint; Shiao-Yng Chan; Jonathan Yinhao Huang; Fabian Yap; Kok Hian Tan; Bernard S M Chern; Heng Hao Tan; Michael J Meaney; Neerja Karnani; Keith M Godfrey; Yung Seng Lee; Jerry Kok Yen Chan; Peter D Gluckman; Yap-Seng Chong; Lynette Pei-Chi Shek; Johan G Eriksson; Airu Chia; Anna Magdalena Fogel; Anne Eng Neo Goh; Anne Hin Yee Chu; Anne Rifkin-Graboi; Anqi Qiu; Bee Wah Lee; Bobby Kyungbeom Cheon; Candida Vaz; Christiani Jeyakumar Henry; Ciaran Gerard Forde; Claudia Chi; Dawn Xin Ping Koh; Desiree Y Phua; Doris Ngiuk Lan Loh; Elaine Phaik Ling Quah; Elizabeth Huiwen Tham; Evelyn Chung Ning Law; Faidon Magkos; Falk Mueller-Riemenschneider; George Seow Heong Yeo; Hannah Ee Juen Yong; Helen Yu Chen; Heng Hao Tan; Hong Pan; Hugo P S van Bever; Hui Min Tan; Izzuddin Bin Mohd Aris; Jeannie Tay; Jerry Kok Yen Chan; Jia Xu; Joanne Su-Yin Yoong; Johan Gunnar Eriksson; Jonathan Tze Liang Choo; Jonathan Y Bernard; Jonathan Yinhao Huang; Jun Shi Lai; Karen Mei Ling Tan; Keith M Godfrey; Kenneth Yung Chiang Kwek; Keri McCrickerd; Kothandaraman Narasimhan; Kok Wee Chong; Kuan Jin Lee; Li Chen; Lieng Hsi Ling; Ling-Wei Chen; Lourdes Mary Daniel; Lynette Pei-Chi Shek; Marielle V Fortier; Mary Foong-Fong Chong; Mei Chien Chua; Melvin Khee-Shing Leow; Michelle Zhi Ling Kee; Min Gong; Mya Thway Tint; Navin Michael; Ngee Lek; Oon Hoe Teoh; Priti Mishra; Queenie Ling Jun Li; Sambasivam Sendhil Velan; Seng Bin Ang; Shirong Cai; Si Hui Goh; Sok Bee Lim; Stella Tsotsi; Stephen Chin-Ying Hsu; Sue-Anne Ee Shiow Toh; Suresh Anand Sadananthan; Teng Hong Tan; Tong Wei Yew; Varsha Gupta; Victor Samuel Rajadurai; Wee Meng Han; Wei Wei Pang; Wen Lun Yuan; Yanan Zhu; Yin Bun Cheung; Yiong Huak Chan; Zai Ru Cheng Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Emily M Nagel; Marie Hickey; Levi M Teigen; Adam Kuchnia; Holly Schifsky; Tara Holm; Carrie P Earthman; Ellen Demerath; Sara E Ramel Journal: Nutr Clin Pract Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Cheryl P Au; Camille H Raynes-Greenow; Robin M Turner; Angela E Carberry; Heather E Jeffery Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 19.112