B Bourgeois1,2, B K Ng3,4, D Latimer1, C R Stannard2, L Romeo2, X Li2, J A Shepherd3, S B Heymsfield1,2. 1. Department of Metabolism and Body Composition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. 2. School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Graduate Program in Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Recent advances have extended anthropometry beyond flexible tape measurements to automated three-dimensional optical devices that rapidly acquire hundreds of body surface dimensions. Three new devices were recently introduced that share in common inexpensive optical cameras. The design, and thus potential clinical applicability, of these systems differ substantially leading us to critically evaluate their accuracy and precision. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: 113 adult subjects completed evaluations by the three optical devices (KX-16 (16 stationary cameras), Proscanner (1 vertically oscillating camera), and Styku scanner (1 stationary camera)), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and a flexible tape measure. Optical measurements were compared to reference method estimates that included results acquired by flexible tape, DXA and ADP. RESULTS: Optical devices provided respective circumference and regional volume estimates that overall were well-correlated with those obtained from flexible tape measurements (for example, hip circumference: R2, 0.91, 0.90, 0.96 for the KX-16, Proscanner, and Styku scanner, respectively) and DXA (for example, trunk volume: R2, 0.97, 0.97, and 0.98). Total body volumes measured by the optical devices were highly correlated with those from the ADP system (all R2s, 0.99). Coefficient of variations obtained from duplicate measurements (n, 55) were larger in optical than in reference measurements and significant (P<0.05) bias was present for some optical measurements relative to reference method estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evaluated optical imaging systems differing in design provided body surface measurements that compared favorably with corresponding reference methods. However, our evaluations uncovered system measurement limitations, such as discrepancies in landmarking, that with correction have the potential to improve future developed devices.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Recent advances have extended anthropometry beyond flexible tape measurements to automated three-dimensional optical devices that rapidly acquire hundreds of body surface dimensions. Three new devices were recently introduced that share in common inexpensive optical cameras. The design, and thus potential clinical applicability, of these systems differ substantially leading us to critically evaluate their accuracy and precision. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: 113 adult subjects completed evaluations by the three optical devices (KX-16 (16 stationary cameras), Proscanner (1 vertically oscillating camera), and Styku scanner (1 stationary camera)), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and a flexible tape measure. Optical measurements were compared to reference method estimates that included results acquired by flexible tape, DXA and ADP. RESULTS: Optical devices provided respective circumference and regional volume estimates that overall were well-correlated with those obtained from flexible tape measurements (for example, hip circumference: R2, 0.91, 0.90, 0.96 for the KX-16, Proscanner, and Styku scanner, respectively) and DXA (for example, trunk volume: R2, 0.97, 0.97, and 0.98). Total body volumes measured by the optical devices were highly correlated with those from the ADP system (all R2s, 0.99). Coefficient of variations obtained from duplicate measurements (n, 55) were larger in optical than in reference measurements and significant (P<0.05) bias was present for some optical measurements relative to reference method estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evaluated optical imaging systems differing in design provided body surface measurements that compared favorably with corresponding reference methods. However, our evaluations uncovered system measurement limitations, such as discrepancies in landmarking, that with correction have the potential to improve future developed devices.
Authors: L Soileau; D Bautista; C Johnson; C Gao; K Zhang; X Li; S B Heymsfield; D Thomas; J Zheng Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: John M Schuna; Courtney M Peterson; Diana M Thomas; Moonseong Heo; Sangmo Hong; Woong Choi; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Am J Hum Biol Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 1.937
Authors: Bowen Xie; Jesus I Avila; Bennett K Ng; Bo Fan; Victoria Loo; Vicente Gilsanz; Thomas Hangartner; Heidi J Kalkwarf; Joan Lappe; Sharon Oberfield; Karen Winer; Babette Zemel; John A Shepherd Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: K W DeGregory; P Kuiper; T DeSilvio; J D Pleuss; R Miller; J W Roginski; C B Fisher; D Harness; S Viswanath; S B Heymsfield; I Dungan; D M Thomas Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: James D Pleuss; Kevin Talty; Steven Morse; Patrick Kuiper; Michael Scioletti; Steven B Heymsfield; Diana M Thomas Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 4.016
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: Michael C Wong; Bennett K Ng; Isaac Tian; Sima Sobhiyeh; Ian Pagano; Marcelline Dechenaud; Samantha F Kennedy; Yong E Liu; Nisa N Kelly; Dominic Chow; Andrea K Garber; Gertraud Maskarinec; Sergi Pujades; Michael J Black; Brian Curless; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Jonathan P Bennett; Yong En Liu; Brandon K Quon; Nisa N Kelly; Michael C Wong; Samantha F Kennedy; Dominic C Chow; Andrea K Garber; Ethan J Weiss; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 7.643
Authors: Lorena Rumbo-Rodríguez; Miriam Sánchez-SanSegundo; Rosario Ferrer-Cascales; Nahuel García-D'Urso; Jose A Hurtado-Sánchez; Ana Zaragoza-Martí Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 3.390