Di Zhao1, Xiaojun Xian2, Mirna Terrera2, Ranganath Krishnan3, Dylan Miller1, Devon Bridgeman1, Kevin Tao2, Lihua Zhang2, Francis Tsow2, Erica S Forzani4, Nongjian Tao5. 1. Center for Bioelectronics and Biosensors, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, United States; School for Engineering of Matter, Transport, and Energy, Arizona State University, United States. 2. Center for Bioelectronics and Biosensors, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, United States. 3. Center for Bioelectronics and Biosensors, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, United States; School of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, Arizona State University, United States. 4. Center for Bioelectronics and Biosensors, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, United States; School for Engineering of Matter, Transport, and Energy, Arizona State University, United States. Electronic address: Erica.Forzani@asu.edu. 5. Center for Bioelectronics and Biosensors, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, United States; School of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, Arizona State University, United States. Electronic address: Nongjian.Tao@asu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The assessment of metabolic parameters related to energy expenditure has a proven value for weight management; however these measurements remain too difficult and costly for monitoring individuals at home. The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new pocket-sized metabolic analyzer device for assessing energy expenditure at rest (REE) and during sedentary activities (EE). The new device performs indirect calorimetry by measuring an individual's oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) rates, which allows the determination of resting- and sedentary activity-related energy expenditure. METHODS: VO2 and VCO2 values of 17 volunteer adult subjects were measured during resting and sedentary activities in order to compare the metabolic analyzer with the Douglas bag method. The Douglas bag method is considered the Gold Standard method for indirect calorimetry. Metabolic parameters of VO2, VCO2, and energy expenditure were compared using linear regression analysis, paired t-tests, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis of measured VO2 and VCO2 values, as well as calculated energy expenditure assessed with the new analyzer and Douglas bag method, had the following linear regression parameters (linear regression slope LRS0, and R-squared coefficient, r(2)) with p = 0: LRS0 (SD) = 1.00 (0.01), r(2) = 0.9933 for VO2; LRS0 (SD) = 1.00 (0.01), r(2) = 0.9929 for VCO2; and LRS0 (SD) = 1.00 (0.01), r(2) = 0.9942 for energy expenditure. In addition, results from paired t-tests did not show statistical significant difference between the methods with a significance level of α = 0.05 for VO2, VCO2, REE, and EE. Furthermore, the Bland-Altman plot for REE showed good agreement between methods with 100% of the results within ±2SD, which was equivalent to ≤10% error. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that the new pocket-sized metabolic analyzer device is accurate for determining VO2, VCO2, and energy expenditure.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The assessment of metabolic parameters related to energy expenditure has a proven value for weight management; however these measurements remain too difficult and costly for monitoring individuals at home. The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a new pocket-sized metabolic analyzer device for assessing energy expenditure at rest (REE) and during sedentary activities (EE). The new device performs indirect calorimetry by measuring an individual's oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) rates, which allows the determination of resting- and sedentary activity-related energy expenditure. METHODS:VO2 and VCO2 values of 17 volunteer adult subjects were measured during resting and sedentary activities in order to compare the metabolic analyzer with the Douglas bag method. The Douglas bag method is considered the Gold Standard method for indirect calorimetry. Metabolic parameters of VO2, VCO2, and energy expenditure were compared using linear regression analysis, paired t-tests, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Linear regression analysis of measured VO2 and VCO2 values, as well as calculated energy expenditure assessed with the new analyzer and Douglas bag method, had the following linear regression parameters (linear regression slope LRS0, and R-squared coefficient, r(2)) with p = 0: LRS0 (SD) = 1.00 (0.01), r(2) = 0.9933 for VO2; LRS0 (SD) = 1.00 (0.01), r(2) = 0.9929 for VCO2; and LRS0 (SD) = 1.00 (0.01), r(2) = 0.9942 for energy expenditure. In addition, results from paired t-tests did not show statistical significant difference between the methods with a significance level of α = 0.05 for VO2, VCO2, REE, and EE. Furthermore, the Bland-Altman plot for REE showed good agreement between methods with 100% of the results within ±2SD, which was equivalent to ≤10% error. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that the new pocket-sized metabolic analyzer device is accurate for determining VO2, VCO2, and energy expenditure.
Authors: Michael Serhan; David Jackemeyer; Mindy Long; Mark Sprowls; Ismael Diez Perez; Wolfgang Maret; Fang Chen; Nongjian Tao; Erica Forzani Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: S Jimena Mora; Mark Sprowls; Vishal V Tipparaju; Courtney M Wheatley-Guy; Doina Kulick; Bruce Johnson; Xian Xiaojun; Erica Forzani Journal: Clin Nutr ESPEN Date: 2021-09-30