Validation of InBody 770 bioelectrical impedance analysis compared to a four-compartment model criterion in young adults
Validation of InBody 770 bioelectrical impedance analysis compared to a four-compartment model criterion in young adults
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/cpf.12700
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Smith-Ryan, Abbie E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brewer, Gabrielle J.;Blue, Malia N. M.;Smith-Ryan, Abbie E.
背景多频生物电阻抗分析（MF-BIA）以时间有效的方式提供增强的身体成分结果。站立式MF-BIA与四室（4C）标准相比的准确性缺乏证据。目的验证站立式MF-BIA与4C标准相比的脂肪质量（FM）、无脂肪质量（FFM）和体脂百分比（%fat）。测量了体重指数为18.5-24.9 kg/m2的年轻成年人的身体成分，这些身体成分是通过站立MF-BIA和4C模型确定的。结果在总样本中，%脂肪的预测误差最大（TE = 4.2%，SEE = 3.9%），其次是FM（TE = 2.4kg; SEE = 2.2kg）和FFM（TE = 2.4kg; SEE = 2.2kg）。在男性中，%脂肪（TE = 2.5%; SEE = 2.2%）和FM（TE = 1.9 kg; SEE = 1.6 kg）是理想的; FFM与FM相似（TE = 1.9 kg; SEE = 1.6 kg）。在女性中，%脂肪（TE = 4.7%; SEE = 4.4%）范围从良好到相当好，FM是非常好到优秀（TE = 2.6 kg; SEE = 2.4 kg）; FFM与FM相似（TE = 2.6 kg; SEE = 2.3 kg）。FM和FFM估计MF-BIA表现出良好的协议的4C模型，并可能是一个实际的措施，身体组成正常体重的成年人。男女的脂肪百分比误差最大，女性误差更大。
Background Multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) offers enhanced body composition outcomes in a time-efficient manner. The accuracy of stand-up MF-BIA compared against a four-compartment (4C) criterion lacks evidence.Objectives To validate a stand-up MF-BIA compared to a 4C criterion for fat mass (FM), fat-free mass (FFM) and body fat percentage (%fat).Subjects/Methods Eighty-two healthy (32% men) normal-weight (BMI: 18.5-24.9 kg/m(2)) young adults were measured for body composition determined from a stand-up MF-BIA and 4C model. Validity statistics included total error (TE) and standard error of the estimate (SEE) to examine prediction error between methods.Results For the total sample, prediction error was the highest for %fat (TE = 4.2%; SEE = 3.9%) followed by FM (TE = 2.4 kg; SEE = 2.2 kg) and FFM (TE = 2.4 kg; SEE = 2.2 kg). In men, %fat (TE = 2.5%; SEE = 2.2%) and FM (TE = 1.9 kg; SEE = 1.6 kg) were ideal; FFM was similar to FM (TE = 1.9 kg; SEE = 1.6 kg). In women, %fat (TE = 4.7%; SEE = 4.4%) ranged from good to fairly good, and FM was very good to excellent (TE = 2.6 kg; SEE = 2.4 kg); FFM was similar to FM (TE = 2.6 kg; SEE = 2.3 kg).Conclusions Stand-up MF-BIA may overestimate %fat and FM, and underestimate FFM compared to a 4C model. FM and FFM estimates from MF-BIA demonstrate good agreement to a 4C model and may be a practical measure of body composition in normal-weight adults. The highest error was seen in %fat for both sexes, with greater error in women.