B K Ng1,2, B J Hinton1,2, B Fan1, A M Kanaya3, J A Shepherd1,2. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. The UC Berkeley - UCSF Graduate Program in Bioengineering, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Obesity is a significant worldwide epidemic that necessitates accessible tools for robust body composition analysis. We investigated whether widely available 3D body surface scanners can provide clinically relevant direct anthropometrics (circumferences, areas and volumes) and body composition estimates (regional fat/lean masses). SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Thirty-nine healthy adults stratified by age, sex and body mass index (BMI) underwent whole-body 3D scans, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography and tape measurements. Linear regressions were performed to assess agreement between 3D measurements and criterion methods. Linear models were derived to predict DXA body composition from 3D scan measurements. Thirty-seven external fitness center users underwent 3D scans and bioelectrical impedance analysis for model validation. RESULTS: 3D body scan measurements correlated strongly to criterion methods: waist circumference R2=0.95, hip circumference R2=0.92, surface area R2=0.97 and volume R2=0.99. However, systematic differences were observed for each measure due to discrepancies in landmark positioning. Predictive body composition equations showed strong agreement for whole body (fat mass R2=0.95, root mean square error (RMSE)=2.4 kg; fat-free mass R2=0.96, RMSE=2.2 kg) and arms, legs and trunk (R2=0.79-0.94, RMSE=0.5-1.7 kg). Visceral fat prediction showed moderate agreement (R2=0.75, RMSE=0.11 kg). CONCLUSIONS: 3D surface scanners offer precise and stable automated measurements of body shape and composition. Software updates may be needed to resolve measurement biases resulting from landmark positioning discrepancies. Further studies are justified to elucidate relationships between body shape, composition and metabolic health across sex, age, BMI and ethnicity groups, as well as in those with metabolic disorders.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES:Obesity is a significant worldwide epidemic that necessitates accessible tools for robust body composition analysis. We investigated whether widely available 3D body surface scanners can provide clinically relevant direct anthropometrics (circumferences, areas and volumes) and body composition estimates (regional fat/lean masses). SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Thirty-nine healthy adults stratified by age, sex and body mass index (BMI) underwent whole-body 3D scans, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography and tape measurements. Linear regressions were performed to assess agreement between 3D measurements and criterion methods. Linear models were derived to predict DXA body composition from 3D scan measurements. Thirty-seven external fitness center users underwent 3D scans and bioelectrical impedance analysis for model validation. RESULTS: 3D body scan measurements correlated strongly to criterion methods: waist circumference R2=0.95, hip circumference R2=0.92, surface area R2=0.97 and volume R2=0.99. However, systematic differences were observed for each measure due to discrepancies in landmark positioning. Predictive body composition equations showed strong agreement for whole body (fat mass R2=0.95, root mean square error (RMSE)=2.4 kg; fat-free mass R2=0.96, RMSE=2.2 kg) and arms, legs and trunk (R2=0.79-0.94, RMSE=0.5-1.7 kg). Visceral fat prediction showed moderate agreement (R2=0.75, RMSE=0.11 kg). CONCLUSIONS: 3D surface scanners offer precise and stable automated measurements of body shape and composition. Software updates may be needed to resolve measurement biases resulting from landmark positioning discrepancies. Further studies are justified to elucidate relationships between body shape, composition and metabolic health across sex, age, BMI and ethnicity groups, as well as in those with metabolic disorders.
Authors: Dale A Schoeller; Frances A Tylavsky; David J Baer; William C Chumlea; Carrie P Earthman; Thomas Fuerst; Tamara B Harris; Steven B Heymsfield; Mary Horlick; Timothy G Lohman; Henry C Lukaski; John Shepherd; Roger M Siervogel; Lori G Borrud Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Bret H Goodpaster; Shanthi Krishnaswami; Tamara B Harris; Andreas Katsiaras; Steven B Kritchevsky; Eleanor M Simonsick; Michael Nevitt; Paul Holvoet; Anne B Newman Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-04-11
Authors: Jane J Lee; Jeanne H Freeland-Graves; M Reese Pepper; Philip R Stanforth; Bugao Xu Journal: J Am Coll Nutr Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Grant M Tinsley; M Lane Moore; Jacob R Dellinger; Brian T Adamson; Marqui L Benavides Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Bennett K Ng; Markus J Sommer; Michael C Wong; Ian Pagano; Yilin Nie; Bo Fan; Samantha Kennedy; Brianna Bourgeois; Nisa Kelly; Yong E Liu; Phoenix Hwaung; Andrea K Garber; Dominic Chow; Christian Vaisse; Brian Curless; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: B Bourgeois; B K Ng; D Latimer; C R Stannard; L Romeo; X Li; J A Shepherd; S B Heymsfield Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Jennifer M Kalish; Leslie G Biesecker; Frederic Brioude; Matthew A Deardorff; Alessandra Di Cesare-Merlone; Todd Druley; Giovanni B Ferrero; Pablo Lapunzina; Lidia Larizza; Saskia Maas; Marina Macchiaiolo; Eamonn R Maher; Silvia Maitz; Julian A Martinez-Agosto; Alessandro Mussa; Peter Robinson; Silvia Russo; Angelo Selicorni; Raoul C Hennekam Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Jacqueline A Augustine; Wesley K Lefferts; Jacob P DeBlois; Tiago V Barreira; Beth A Taylor; Kan Liu; Kevin S Heffernan Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Michael C Wong; Cassidy McCarthy; Nicole Fearnbach; Shengping Yang; John Shepherd; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Dympna Gallagher; Aline Andres; David A Fields; William J Evans; Robert Kuczmarski; William L Lowe; Julie C Lumeng; Emily Oken; John A Shepherd; Shumei Sun; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Judy Mastick; Betty J Smoot; Steven M Paul; Kord M Kober; Bruce A Cooper; Lori K Madden; Yvette P Conley; Niharika Dixit; Marilyn J Hammer; Mei R Fu; Merisa Piper; Sarah P Cate; John Shepherd; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 2.589