BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional optical (3DO) body scanning has been proposed for automatic anthropometry. However, conventional measurements fail to capture detailed body shape. More sophisticated shape features could better indicate health status. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to predict DXA total and regional body composition, serum lipid and diabetes markers, and functional strength from 3DO body scans using statistical shape modeling. METHODS: Healthy adults underwent whole-body 3DO and DXA scans, blood tests, and strength assessments in the Shape Up! Adults cross-sectional observational study. Principal component analysis was performed on registered 3DO scans. Stepwise linear regressions were performed to estimate body composition, serum biomarkers, and strength using 3DO principal components (PCs). 3DO model accuracy was compared with simple anthropometric models and precision was compared with DXA. RESULTS: This analysis included 407 subjects. Eleven PCs for each sex captured 95% of body shape variance. 3DO body composition accuracy to DXA was: fat mass R2 = 0.88 male, 0.93 female; visceral fat mass R2 = 0.67 male, 0.75 female. 3DO body fat test-retest precision was: root mean squared error = 0.81 kg male, 0.66 kg female. 3DO visceral fat was as precise (%CV = 7.4 for males, 6.8 for females) as DXA (%CV = 6.8 for males, 7.4 for females). Multiple 3DO PCs were significantly correlated with serum HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, insulin, and HOMA-IR, independent of simple anthropometrics. 3DO PCs improved prediction of isometric knee strength (combined model R2 = 0.67 male, 0.59 female; anthropometrics-only model R2 = 0.34 male, 0.24 female). CONCLUSIONS: 3DO body shape PCs predict body composition with good accuracy and precision comparable to existing methods. 3DO PCs improve prediction of serum lipid and diabetes markers, and functional strength measurements. The safety and accessibility of 3DO scanning make it appropriate for monitoring individual body composition, and metabolic health and functional strength in epidemiological settings.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03637855.
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional optical (3DO) body scanning has been proposed for automatic anthropometry. However, conventional measurements fail to capture detailed body shape. More sophisticated shape features could better indicate health status. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to predict DXA total and regional body composition, serum lipid and diabetes markers, and functional strength from 3DO body scans using statistical shape modeling. METHODS: Healthy adults underwent whole-body 3DO and DXA scans, blood tests, and strength assessments in the Shape Up! Adults cross-sectional observational study. Principal component analysis was performed on registered 3DO scans. Stepwise linear regressions were performed to estimate body composition, serum biomarkers, and strength using 3DO principal components (PCs). 3DO model accuracy was compared with simple anthropometric models and precision was compared with DXA. RESULTS: This analysis included 407 subjects. Eleven PCs for each sex captured 95% of body shape variance. 3DO body composition accuracy to DXA was: fat mass R2 = 0.88 male, 0.93 female; visceral fat mass R2 = 0.67 male, 0.75 female. 3DO body fat test-retest precision was: root mean squared error = 0.81 kg male, 0.66 kg female. 3DO visceral fat was as precise (%CV = 7.4 for males, 6.8 for females) as DXA (%CV = 6.8 for males, 7.4 for females). Multiple 3DO PCs were significantly correlated with serum HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, insulin, and HOMA-IR, independent of simple anthropometrics. 3DO PCs improved prediction of isometric knee strength (combined model R2 = 0.67 male, 0.59 female; anthropometrics-only model R2 = 0.34 male, 0.24 female). CONCLUSIONS: 3DO body shape PCs predict body composition with good accuracy and precision comparable to existing methods. 3DO PCs improve prediction of serum lipid and diabetes markers, and functional strength measurements. The safety and accessibility of 3DO scanning make it appropriate for monitoring individual body composition, and metabolic health and functional strength in epidemiological settings.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03637855.
Authors: David L Ergun; Megan P Rothney; Mary K Oates; Yi Xia; Wynn K Wacker; Neil C Binkley Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2012-11-11 Impact factor: 2.617
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 L Kuk; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Milton Z Nichaman; Timothy S Church; Steven N Blair; Robert Ross Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.002
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: Abishek Stanley; John Schuna; Shengping Yang; Samantha Kennedy; Moonseong Heo; Michael Wong; John Shepherd; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 7.045
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: 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; Lambert T Leong; Michael C Wong; Samantha F Kennedy; Dominic C Chow; Andrea K Garber; Ethan J Weiss; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 9.298
Authors: Isaac Y Tian; Bennett K Ng; Michael C Wong; Samantha Kennedy; Phoenix Hwaung; Nisa Kelly; En Liu; Andrea K Garber; Brian Curless; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 4.071
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: 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