Melissa E Heard-Lipsmeyer1,2,3, Holly Hull4, Clark R Sims1, Mario A Cleves1, Aline Andres1,2. 1. Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. 3. Division of Cell Biology and Physiology, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine-Louisiana Campus, Monroe, Louisiana. 4. Department of Dietetics and Nutrition, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate and precise methods to measure of body composition in infancy and childhood are needed. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated differences and precision of three methods when compared with the four-compartment (4C) model for estimating fat mass (FM). METHODS: FM of children (age 14 days to 6 years of age, N = 346) was obtained using quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance (QMR, EchoMRI-AH), air-displacement plethysmography (ADP, PeaPod, less than or equal to 8 kg, BodPod age 6 years or older), and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, Hologic QDR). The 4C model was computed. Correlation, concordance, and Bland-Altman analyses were performed. RESULTS: In infants, PeaPod had high individual FM accuracy, whereas DXA had high group FM accuracy compared with 4C. In children, DXA had high group and individual FM accuracies compared with 4C. QMR underestimated group FM in infants and children (300 and 510 g, respectively). The instrument FM precision was best for QMR (10 g) followed by BodPod (34 g), PeaPod (38 g), and DXA (45 g). CONCLUSIONS: In infants, PeaPod was the best method to estimate individual FM whereas DXA was best to estimate group FM. In children, DXA was best to estimate individual and group FM. QMR had the highest instrument precision.
BACKGROUND: Accurate and precise methods to measure of body composition in infancy and childhood are needed. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated differences and precision of three methods when compared with the four-compartment (4C) model for estimating fat mass (FM). METHODS:FM of children (age 14 days to 6 years of age, N = 346) was obtained using quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance (QMR, EchoMRI-AH), air-displacement plethysmography (ADP, PeaPod, less than or equal to 8 kg, BodPod age 6 years or older), and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, Hologic QDR). The 4C model was computed. Correlation, concordance, and Bland-Altman analyses were performed. RESULTS: In infants, PeaPod had high individual FM accuracy, whereas DXA had high group FM accuracy compared with 4C. In children, DXA had high group and individual FM accuracies compared with 4C. QMR underestimated group FM in infants and children (300 and 510 g, respectively). The instrument FM precision was best for QMR (10 g) followed by BodPod (34 g), PeaPod (38 g), and DXA (45 g). CONCLUSIONS: In infants, PeaPod was the best method to estimate individual FM whereas DXA was best to estimate group FM. In children, DXA was best to estimate individual and group FM. QMR had the highest instrument precision.
Authors: Kenneth J Ellis; Manjiang Yao; Roman J Shypailo; Alessandro Urlando; William W Wong; William C Heird Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ian Janssen; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Sathanur R Srinivasan; Wei Chen; Robert M Malina; Claude Bouchard; Gerald S Berenson Journal: Obes Res Date: 2005-06
Authors: Katherine A Sauder; Jill L Kaar; Anne P Starling; Brandy M Ringham; Deborah H Glueck; Dana Dabelea Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Rebecca A Krukowski; Delia West; Marisha DiCarlo; Kartik Shankar; Mario A Cleves; Eric Tedford; Aline Andres Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2017-03
Authors: Zachary J Ward; Michael W Long; Stephen C Resch; Catherine M Giles; Angie L Cradock; Steven L Gortmaker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Tatiana Toro-Ramos; Charles Paley; William W Wong; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Wen W Yu; John Thornton; Dympna Gallagher Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2017-07-16 Impact factor: 5.002