Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Short Communication
  • Published:

Assessment of EchoMRI-AH versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry by iDXA to measure human body composition

Abstract

Comparison of percent fat mass across different body composition analysis devices is important given variation in technology accuracy and precision, as well as the growing need for cross-validation of devices often applied across longitudinal studies. We compared EchoMRI-AH and Lunar iDXA quantification of percent body fat (PBF) in 84 adults (43M, 41F), with the mean age 39.7±15.9 years and body mass index (BMI) 26.2±5.3 kg/m2. PBF correlated strongly between devices (r>0.95, P<0.0001). A prediction equation was derived in half of the subjects, and the other half were used to cross-validate the proposed equation (EchoMRI-AH PBF=[(0.94 × iDXA PBF)+(0.14 × Age)+(3.3 × Female)–8.83). The mean PBF difference (predicted-measured) in the validation group was not different from 0 (diff=0.27%, 95% confidence interval: −0.42–0.96, P=0.430). Bland–Altman plots showed a bias with higher measured PBF on EchoMRI-AH versus iDXA in all 84 subjects (β=0.13, P<0.0001). The proposed prediction equation was valid in our cross-validation sample, and it has the potential to be applied across multicenter studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taicher GZ, Tinsley FC, Reiderman A, Heiman ML . Quantitative magnetic resonance (QMR) method for bone and whole-body-composition analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 2003; 377: 990–1002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Napolitano A, Miller SR, Murgatroyd PR, Coward WA, Wright A, Finer N et al. Validation of a quantitative magnetic resonance method for measuring human body composition. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008; 16: 191–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ball SD, Swan PD . Accuracy of estimating intra-abdominal fat in obese women. J Exerc Physiol 2003; 6: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bertin E, Marcus C, Ruiz JC, Eschard JP, Leutenegger M . Measurement of visceral adipose tissue by DXA combined with anthropometry in obese humans. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000; 24: 263–270.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gallagher D, Thornton JC, He Q, Wang J, Yu W, Bradstreet TE et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance fat measurements in humans correlate with established methods but are biased. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2010; 18: 2047–2054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Galgani JE, Smith SR, Ravussin E . Assessment of EchoMRI-AH versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure human body composition. Int J Obes 2011; 35: 1241–1246.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bland JM, Altman DG . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by a NORC Center Grant #P30DK072476 (ER). The EchoMRI-AH instrument was provided to PBRC as a gift to the institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E Ravussin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marlatt, K., Greenway, F. & Ravussin, E. Assessment of EchoMRI-AH versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry by iDXA to measure human body composition. Eur J Clin Nutr 71, 558–560 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2016.236

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2016.236

Search

Quick links