OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of measurements of total and regional fat by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), underwater weighing (UWW) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women. DESIGN: 13 volunteer pre-menopausal women measured with a Norland XR26 HS DXA instrument, hydrodensitometry equipment and a 0.08 Tesla MRI scanner. SETTING: Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. RESULTS: There were high correlations between measurements of total-body fat by the different techniques, but poor agreement. The mean values of fat as a percentage of the total body mass were UWW = 28.6%, DXA = 40.0%, MRI = 23.0%, although the MRI excluded the head, forearms and feet, estimated from the DXA measurements to contain 8% of the body fat. Although the correlations were apparently linear in the ranges examined, those including the Norland DXA had high intercepts. Bland and Altman plots showed no dependence of the differences on the degree of fatness. Evidence was obtained from in vivo comparisons and phantom measurements that the fat calibration of the Norland DXA had changed during a three year period, suggesting that fat calibration errors contributed to the MRI/DXA differences. Previous comparisons between the Norland DXA and other brands indicate that Hologic and Lunar instruments would show a closer agreement with MRI and UWW. Profiles of fat distribution along the body showed variations in the DXA/MRI ratio, particularly in the chest, with the DXA pattern thought to be the less accurate. The DXA measurements of bone mineral, fat and lean tissue were used to demonstrate the variable proportion of bone in fat-free tissue, leading to errors in UWW. CONCLUSIONS: Each method has its assumptions, which are often not sufficiently appreciated. Each method may be useful for testing and improving the assumptions in the other methods. No method can yet be regarded as a satisfactory reference technique.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of measurements of total and regional fat by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), underwater weighing (UWW) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women. DESIGN: 13 volunteer pre-menopausal women measured with a Norland XR26 HS DXA instrument, hydrodensitometry equipment and a 0.08 Tesla MRI scanner. SETTING: Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. RESULTS: There were high correlations between measurements of total-body fat by the different techniques, but poor agreement. The mean values of fat as a percentage of the total body mass were UWW = 28.6%, DXA = 40.0%, MRI = 23.0%, although the MRI excluded the head, forearms and feet, estimated from the DXA measurements to contain 8% of the body fat. Although the correlations were apparently linear in the ranges examined, those including the Norland DXA had high intercepts. Bland and Altman plots showed no dependence of the differences on the degree of fatness. Evidence was obtained from in vivo comparisons and phantom measurements that the fat calibration of the Norland DXA had changed during a three year period, suggesting that fat calibration errors contributed to the MRI/DXA differences. Previous comparisons between the Norland DXA and other brands indicate that Hologic and Lunar instruments would show a closer agreement with MRI and UWW. Profiles of fat distribution along the body showed variations in the DXA/MRI ratio, particularly in the chest, with the DXA pattern thought to be the less accurate. The DXA measurements of bone mineral, fat and lean tissue were used to demonstrate the variable proportion of bone in fat-free tissue, leading to errors in UWW. CONCLUSIONS: Each method has its assumptions, which are often not sufficiently appreciated. Each method may be useful for testing and improving the assumptions in the other methods. No method can yet be regarded as a satisfactory reference technique.
Authors: Wei Shen; ZiMian Wang; Mark Punyanita; Jianbo Lei; Ahmet Sinav; John G Kral; Celina Imielinska; Robert Ross; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Obes Res Date: 2003-01
Authors: Rebecca Scherzer; Wei Shen; Peter Bacchetti; Donald Kotler; Cora E Lewis; Michael G Shlipak; Mark Punyanitya; Steven B Heymsfield; Carl Grunfeld Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Pasquina Marzola; Federico Boschi; Francesco Moneta; Andrea Sbarbati; Carlo Zancanaro Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Yasmin Y Al-Gindan; Catherine Hankey; Lindsay Govan; Dympna Gallagher; Steven B Heymsfield; Michael E J Lean Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 7.045