A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Validity and reliability of a 4-compartment body composition model using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry-derived body volume. | LitMetric

Background: Body volume (BV), one component of a four-compartment (4C) body composition model, is commonly assessed using air displacement plethysmography (BodPod). However, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) has been proposed as an alternative method for calculating BV.

Aims: This investigation evaluated the validity and reliability of DEXA-derived BV measurement and a DEXA-derived 4C model (DEXA-4C) for percent body fat (%BF), fat mass (FM), and lean mass (LM).

Methods: A total sample of 127 men and women (Mean ± SD; Age: 35.8 ± 9.4 years; Body Mass: 98.1 ± 20.9 kg; Height: 176.3 ± 9.2 cm) completed a traditional 4C body composition reference assessment. A DEXA-4C model was created by linearly regressing BodPod BV with DEXA FM, LM, and bone mineral content as independent factors. The DEXA-4C model was validated in a random sub-sample of 27 subjects. Reliability was evaluated in a sample of 40 subjects that underwent a second session of identical testing.

Results: When BV derived from DEXA was applied to a 4C model, there were no significant differences in %BF (p = 0.404), FM (p = 0.295), or LM (p = 0.295) when compared to the traditional 4C model. The approach was also reliable; BV was not different between trials (p = 0.170). For BV, %BF, FM, and LM relative consistency values ranged from 0.995 to 0.998. Standard error of measurement for BV was 0.62 L, ranging from 0.831 to 0.960 kg. There were no significant differences between visits for %BF (p = 0.075), FM (p = 0.275), or LM (p = 0.542).

Conclusion: The DEXA-4C model appears to be a valid and reliable method of estimating %BF, FM, and LM. The prediction of BV from DEXA simplifies the acquisition of 4C body composition by eliminating the need for an additional BV assessment.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110400PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2016.05.006DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

body composition
16
dexa-4c model
12
validity reliability
8
body
8
model
8
composition model
8
body volume
8
%bf
5
reliability 4-compartment
4
4-compartment body
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!