Grant M Tinsley1, M Lane Moore2, Jacob R Dellinger2, Brian T Adamson2, Marqui L Benavides2. 1. Energy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA. grant.tinsley@ttu.edu. 2. Energy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital anthropometry is increasingly accessible due to commercial availability of three-dimensional optical scanners (3DO). METHODS: One hundred and seventy-nine participants were assessed by four 3DO systems (FIT3D®, Size Stream®, Styku®, and Naked Labs®) in duplicate, air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Test-retest precision was evaluated, and validity of total and regional volumes was established. RESULTS: All scanners produced precise estimates, with root mean square coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV) of 1.1-1.3% when averaged across circumferences and 1.9-2.3% when averaged across volumes. Precision for circumferences generally decreased in the order of: hip, waist and thigh, chest, neck, and arms. Precision for volumes generally decreased in the order of: total body volume (BV), torso, legs, and arms. Total BV was significantly underestimated by Styku® (constant error [CE]: -10.1 L; root mean square error [RMSE]: 10.5 L) and overestimated by Size Stream® (CE: 8.0 L; RMSE: 8.3 L). Total BV did not differ between ADP and FIT3D® (CE: -3.9 L; RMSE: 4.2 L) or DXA BV equations (CE: 0-1.4 L; RMSE: 0.7-1.5 L). Torso volume was overestimated and leg and arm volumes were underestimated by all 3DO. No total or regional 3DO volume estimates exhibited equivalence with reference methods using 5% equivalence regions, and proportional bias of varying magnitudes was observed. CONCLUSIONS: All 3DO produced precise anthropometric estimates, although variability in specific precision estimates was observed. 3DO BV estimates did not exhibit equivalence with reference methods. Conversely, DXA-derived total BV exhibited superior validity and equivalence with ADP.
BACKGROUND: Digital anthropometry is increasingly accessible due to commercial availability of three-dimensional optical scanners (3DO). METHODS: One hundred and seventy-nine participants were assessed by four 3DO systems (FIT3D®, Size Stream®, Styku®, and Naked Labs®) in duplicate, air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Test-retest precision was evaluated, and validity of total and regional volumes was established. RESULTS: All scanners produced precise estimates, with root mean square coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV) of 1.1-1.3% when averaged across circumferences and 1.9-2.3% when averaged across volumes. Precision for circumferences generally decreased in the order of: hip, waist and thigh, chest, neck, and arms. Precision for volumes generally decreased in the order of: total body volume (BV), torso, legs, and arms. Total BV was significantly underestimated by Styku® (constant error [CE]: -10.1 L; root mean square error [RMSE]: 10.5 L) and overestimated by Size Stream® (CE: 8.0 L; RMSE: 8.3 L). Total BV did not differ between ADP and FIT3D® (CE: -3.9 L; RMSE: 4.2 L) or DXA BV equations (CE: 0-1.4 L; RMSE: 0.7-1.5 L). Torso volume was overestimated and leg and arm volumes were underestimated by all 3DO. No total or regional 3DO volume estimates exhibited equivalence with reference methods using 5% equivalence regions, and proportional bias of varying magnitudes was observed. CONCLUSIONS: All 3DO produced precise anthropometric estimates, although variability in specific precision estimates was observed. 3DO BV estimates did not exhibit equivalence with reference methods. Conversely, DXA-derived total BV exhibited superior validity and equivalence with ADP.
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: Steven B Heymsfield; Brianna Bourgeois; Bennett K Ng; Markus J Sommer; Xin Li; John A Shepherd Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Marco Alessandro Minetto; Angelo Pietrobelli; Chiara Busso; Jonathan P Bennett; Andrea Ferraris; John A Shepherd; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-05-30
Authors: Sima Sobhiyeh; Nathan Borel; Marcelline Dechenaud; Clinten A Graham; Michael Wong; Peter Wolenski; John Shepherd; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2020-07
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: Maulik D Majmudar; Siddhartha Chandra; Kiran Yakkala; Samantha Kennedy; Amit Agrawal; Mark Sippel; Prakash Ramu; Apoorv Chaudhri; Brooke Smith; Antonio Criminisi; Steven B Heymsfield; Fatima Cody Stanford Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-06-29
Authors: Marcus D R Klarqvist; Saaket Agrawal; Nathaniel Diamant; Patrick T Ellinor; Anthony Philippakis; Kenney Ng; Puneet Batra; Amit V Khera Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-07-27
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
Authors: Patrick S Harty; Breck Sieglinger; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd; David Bruner; Matthew T Stratton; Grant M Tinsley Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 4.016