Richard F Burton1. 1. Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK. R.F.Burton@bio.gla.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body surface areas are usually estimated by means of a formula due in its general form to Du Bois and Du Bois (1916), i.e. area = C x mass(a) x height(b), where C, a and b are empirical constants. Its physical basis is unknown. AIM: The present study aimed to explain this formula, correct some errors in the associated literature and provide a clear basis for future developments. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Use is made of published data, but arguments are largely based on mathematics and modelling. RESULTS: A more fundamental formula is as follows: area = alpha(mass x height)(1/2) + beta(mass/height), where alpha and beta are constants. For realistic values of mass and height the two equations are numerically equivalent. For individuals, beta cannot be negative and b cannot exceed a, but, as regression parameters, these conditions may not be satisfied. This could be due to systematic or statistical relationships between individual values of alpha or beta and the ratio height(3)/mass. Values of alpha, beta, C, a and b are calculated for some published data. CONCLUSIONS: The original type of formula suffices for practical purposes, but the new one is better in analytical contexts when other terms, e.g. for body shape, are to be incorporated.
BACKGROUND: Body surface areas are usually estimated by means of a formula due in its general form to Du Bois and Du Bois (1916), i.e. area = C x mass(a) x height(b), where C, a and b are empirical constants. Its physical basis is unknown. AIM: The present study aimed to explain this formula, correct some errors in the associated literature and provide a clear basis for future developments. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Use is made of published data, but arguments are largely based on mathematics and modelling. RESULTS: A more fundamental formula is as follows: area = alpha(mass x height)(1/2) + beta(mass/height), where alpha and beta are constants. For realistic values of mass and height the two equations are numerically equivalent. For individuals, beta cannot be negative and b cannot exceed a, but, as regression parameters, these conditions may not be satisfied. This could be due to systematic or statistical relationships between individual values of alpha or beta and the ratio height(3)/mass. Values of alpha, beta, C, a and b are calculated for some published data. CONCLUSIONS: The original type of formula suffices for practical purposes, but the new one is better in analytical contexts when other terms, e.g. for body shape, are to be incorporated.
Authors: Alexander Dietl; Klaus Stark; Martina E Zimmermann; Christa Meisinger; Heribert Schunkert; Christoph Birner; Lars S Maier; Annette Peters; Iris M Heid; Andreas Luchner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Franz Haertel; Diana Reisberg; Martin Peters; Sebastian Nuding; P Christian Schulze; Karl Werdan; Henning Ebelt Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Alexander Dietl; Martina E Zimmermann; Caroline Brandl; Stefan Wallner; Ralph Burkhardt; Lars S Maier; Andreas Luchner; Iris M Heid; Klaus J Stark Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 2.692