P J Navin1, M R Moynagh1, E J Atkinson2, P Tirumanisetty3, N K LeBrasseur4, A Kumar5, S Khosla6, N Takahashi7. 1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. 2. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. 4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. 5. Department of Gynecological Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. 6. Department of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. Electronic address: Takahashi.Naoki@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Accurate and reproducible biomarkers are required to allow a more personalized approach to patient care. Body composition is one such biomarker affecting outcomes in a range of surgical and oncological conditions. The aim of this study is to determine the age and sex specific distribution of body composition data, based on information gathered from computed tomography (CT). METHODS: This prospective study used healthy subjects from the medical records linkage of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, based in Minnesota, USA. Each patient had a CT scan without intravenous contrast performed between 1999 and 2001. Quantification was performed using previously validated semi-automated in-house developed software for body composition analysis. Subcutaneous adipose tissue area, visceral adipose tissue area, intermuscular adipose tissue area and skeletal muscle area were measured and indexed to subject height. Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape were used to assess the location, scale, and shape of each variable across age, stratified by sex. Z-scores specific to sex were assessed for each of the parameters analyzed. Age-specific z-scores were calculated using the formula: Z = (Index Variable - μ)/σ or Z = (√ (Index Variable) - μ)/σ. RESULTS: There were 692 subjects enrolled in the study. The fitted model equation was offered for each variable with values presented for μ and σ. Modelling with penalized splines was performed for VAT index, IMAT index and total adipose tissue index. Scatterplots of each variable were produced with lines of Z-scores as a visual representation. CONCLUSION: This study offers comparative data to allow comparison amongst multiple populations. This will form an important reference for future research and clinical practice.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Accurate and reproducible biomarkers are required to allow a more personalized approach to patient care. Body composition is one such biomarker affecting outcomes in a range of surgical and oncological conditions. The aim of this study is to determine the age and sex specific distribution of body composition data, based on information gathered from computed tomography (CT). METHODS: This prospective study used healthy subjects from the medical records linkage of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, based in Minnesota, USA. Each patient had a CT scan without intravenous contrast performed between 1999 and 2001. Quantification was performed using previously validated semi-automated in-house developed software for body composition analysis. Subcutaneous adipose tissue area, visceral adipose tissue area, intermuscular adipose tissue area and skeletal muscle area were measured and indexed to subject height. Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape were used to assess the location, scale, and shape of each variable across age, stratified by sex. Z-scores specific to sex were assessed for each of the parameters analyzed. Age-specific z-scores were calculated using the formula: Z = (Index Variable - μ)/σ or Z = (√ (Index Variable) - μ)/σ. RESULTS: There were 692 subjects enrolled in the study. The fitted model equation was offered for each variable with values presented for μ and σ. Modelling with penalized splines was performed for VAT index, IMAT index and total adipose tissue index. Scatterplots of each variable were produced with lines of Z-scores as a visual representation. CONCLUSION: This study offers comparative data to allow comparison amongst multiple populations. This will form an important reference for future research and clinical practice.
Authors: Dympna Gallagher; Patrick Kuznia; Stanley Heshka; Jeanine Albu; Steven B Heymsfield; Bret Goodpaster; Marjolein Visser; Tamara B Harris Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Alexander D Weston; Panagiotis Korfiatis; Timothy L Kline; Kenneth A Philbrick; Petro Kostandy; Tomas Sakinis; Motokazu Sugimoto; Naoki Takahashi; Bradley J Erickson Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sarah P Psutka; Alonso Carrasco; Grant D Schmit; Michael R Moynagh; Stephen A Boorjian; Igor Frank; Suzanne B Stewart; Prabin Thapa; Robert F Tarrell; John C Cheville; Matthew K Tollefson Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Valerie P Grignol; Andrew D Smith; Darya Shlapak; Xu Zhang; Sara Martin Del Campo; William E Carson Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Aaron S Rickles; James C Iannuzzi; Oleg Mironov; Andrew-Paul Deeb; Abhiram Sharma; Fergal J Fleming; John R T Monson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Bret H Goodpaster; Seok Won Park; Tamara B Harris; Steven B Kritchevsky; Michael Nevitt; Ann V Schwartz; Eleanor M Simonsick; Frances A Tylavsky; Marjolein Visser; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.053