| Literature DB >> 32049818 |
Wen-Hui Fang1, Jie-Ru Yang2, Chih-Ying Lin3, Po-Jen Hsiao4, Ming-Yu Tu5, Chien-Fu Chen6, Dung-Jang Tsai2,7, Wen Su8, Guo-Shu Huang9, Hung Chang10,11, Sui-Lung Su2.
Abstract
Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is currently the most commonly used method in clinical practice to measure body composition. However, the bioelectrical impedance analyzer is not designed according to different countries, races, and elderly populations. Because different races may have different body compositions, a prediction model for the elderly population in Taiwan should be developed to avoid population bias, thereby improving the accuracy of community evaluation surveys.Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used as a standard method for comparison, and impedance analysis was used for the development of a highly accurate predictive model that is suitable for assessing the body composition of elderly people.This study employed a cross-sectional design and recruited 438 elderly people who were undergoing health examinations at the health management center in the Tri-Service General Hospital as study subjects. Basic demographic variables and impedance analysis values were used in four predictive models, namely, linear regression, random forest, support vector machine (SVM), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) models, to predict DXA body composition. The data from 354 study subjects were used to develop the predictive model, while the data from 84 study subjects were used to validate the accuracy of the predictive model.The body composition of elderly people as estimated by InBody 720 was highly correlated with that estimated by DXA. The correlation coefficient between InBody 720 and DXA for muscle mass was 0.969, and that for fat mass was 0.935. Consistency analysis results showed that InBody 720 tends to underestimate muscle mass and fat mass. A comparison of the accuracy of the linear regression, random forest, SVM, and XGBoost models showed that the linear regression has the highest accuracy. The correlation coefficient between the new model and DXA for muscle mass and fat mass were 0.977 and 0.978, respectively.The new predictive model can be used to monitor the nutrition status of elderly people and identify people with sarcopenia in the community.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32049818 PMCID: PMC7035056 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Figure 1Process of screening the study subjects.
Distribution of the basic demographic data of the study subjects.
Intra-group consistency analysis for the repeated BIA measurements.
Correlation between BIA and DXA in body composition.
Figure 2(A) Bland–Altman difference plot for BIA and DXA adipose-derived mass. The mean difference in fat mass between BIA and DXA was 0.0019, and the confidence interval for the two standard deviations was −3.71 to 3.71. The Bland–Altman consistency analysis results showed that BIA tends to underestimate fat mass. However, overall, only <5% of the differences in fat mass between DXA and BIA exceeded ±2 standard deviations, which conforms to the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the fat masses estimated by DXA and BIA are consistent. (B) Bland–Altman difference plot for BIA and DXA muscle mass. The mean difference in muscle mass between BIA and DXA was 0.42, and the confidence interval for the two standard deviations was −3.44 to 4.28. The Bland–Altman consistency analysis results showed that BIA tends to underestimate muscle mass. However, overall, only <5% of the differences in muscle mass between DXA and BIA exceeded ±2 standard deviations, which conforms to the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the muscle masses estimated by DXA and BIA are consistent. (C) Bland–Altman difference plot for BIA and DXA right arm muscle mass. The mean difference in right arm muscle mass between BIA and DXA was 0.061, and the confidence interval for the two standard deviations was −0.36 to 0.48. The Bland–Altman consistency analysis results showed that BIA tends to underestimate the right arm muscle mass. However, overall, only <5% of the differences in muscle mass between DXA and BIA exceeded ±2 standard deviations, which conforms to the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the muscle masses estimated by DXA and BIA are consistent. (D) Bland–Altman difference plot for BIA and DXA left arm muscle mass. The mean difference in left arm muscle mass between BIA and DXA was −0.032, and the confidence interval for the two standard deviations was −0.44 to 0.37. The Bland–Altman consistency analysis results showed that BIA tends to overestimate the left arm muscle mass. However, overall, only <5% of the differences in muscle mass between DXA and BIA exceeded ±2 standard deviations, which conforms to the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the muscle masses estimated by DXA and BIA are consistent. (E) Bland–Altman difference plot for BIA and DXA trunk muscle mass. The mean difference in trunk muscle mass between BIA and DXA was 0.95, and the confidence interval for the two standard deviations was −1.89 to 3.8. The Bland–Altman consistency analysis results showed that BIA tends to underestimate the trunk muscle mass. However, overall, only <5% of the differences in muscle mass between DXA and BIA exceeded ± 2 standard deviations, which conforms to the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the muscle masses estimated by DXA and BIA are consistent. (F) Bland–Altman difference plot for BIA and DXA right leg muscle mass. The mean difference in right leg muscle mass between BIA and DXA was −0.12, and the confidence interval for the two standard deviations was −1.15 to 0.92. The Bland–Altman consistency analysis results showed that BIA tends to overestimate the right leg muscle mass. However, overall, only <5% of the differences in muscle mass between DXA and BIA exceeded ±2 standard deviations, which conforms to the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the muscle masses estimated by DXA and BIA are consistent. (G) Bland–Altman difference plot for BIA and DXA left leg muscle mass. The mean difference in left leg muscle mass between BIA and DXA was −0.18, and the confidence interval for the two standard deviations was −1.26 to 0.91. The mean difference in right leg muscle mass between BIA and DXA was −0.12, and the confidence interval for the two standard deviations was −1.15 to 0.92. The Bland–Altman consistency analysis results showed that BIA tends to overestimate the left leg muscle mass. However, overall, only <5% of the differences in muscle mass between DXA and BIA exceeded ±2 standard deviations, which conforms to the 95% confidence level. Therefore, the muscle masses estimated by DXA and BIA are consistent.
Optimal correlation coefficient and variables for the body composition predicted by different models.
Accuracy comparison between DXA, BIA, and the new prediction model.