Cited by 66Body Composition Measurement TechniquesOptical measurement and interference techniquesBody Contouring and Surgery

3-Dimensional optical scanning for body composition assessment: A 4-component model comparison of four commercially available scanners

Tinsley, Grant M., Moore, M. Lane, Benavides, Marqui L., Dellinger, Jacob R., Adamson, Brian T.·2020·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background & aims Body composition assessment via 3-dimensional optical (3DO) scanning has emerged as a rapid and simple evaluation method. The aim of this study was to establish the precision of body composition estimates from four commercially available 3DO scanners and evaluate their validity as compared to a reference 4-component (4C) model. Methods The body composition of 171 participants was assessed using four commercially-available 3DO scanners (FIT3D®, Naked Labs®, Size Stream®, and Styku®) and a 4C model utilizing data from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, air displacement plethysmography, and bioimpedance spectroscopy. Body composition estimates were compared via equivalence testing, Deming regression, Bland-Altman analysis, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), root mean square error (RMSE), and related metrics. Precision metrics, including the root mean square coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV), precision error, and intraclass correlation coefficient, were generated for duplicate scans in 139 participants. Results All scanners produced reasonably reliable estimates, with RMS-%CV of 2.3-4.3% for body fat percentage (BF%), 2.5-4.3% for fat mass (FM), and 0.7-1.4% for fat-free mass (FFM). ICC values ranged from 0.975 to 0.996 for BF% and 0.990 to 0.999 for FM and FFM. All scanners except Styku® demonstrated equivalence with 4C, using 5% equivalence regions, and constant errors of <1% for BF% and ≤0.5 kg for FM and FFM. However, the slopes of regression lines differed from the line of identity for most scanners and variables. CCC values ranged from 0.74 to 0.90 for BF%, 0.85 to 0.95 for FM, and 0.93 to 0.97 for FFM. RMSE values ranged from 3.7 to 6.1% for BF% and 2.8-4.6 kg for FM and FFM. Bland-Altman analysis indicated proportional bias of varying magnitudes was present for all scanners. Conclusions Commercially available 3DO scanners produce relatively reliable body composition estimates. Three out of four scanners demonstrated equivalence with a 4C model for assessments of BF%, FM, and FFM, although other metrics of validity varied among scanners, and proportional bias was present for all scanners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.02.008

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tinsley, G. M., Moore, M. L., Benavides, M. L., Dellinger, J. R., & Adamson, B. T.
Affiliations
Texas Tech University (US)
Corresponding author
Tinsley, Grant M.
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
39
Issue
10
Pages
3160-3167
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006581297
Cited by
66
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4
FWCI
5.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Texas Tech University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Optical measurement and interference techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Body Contouring and Surgery
Keywords
3D optical scanning, body composition assessment, body fat percentage, fat mass, fat-free mass, measurement precision, proportional bias, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, air displacement plethysmography, bioimpedance spectroscopy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anthropometry, Body Composition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Plethysmography, Predictive Value of Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Absorptiometry, Photon, Electric Impedance, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Young Adult, Optical Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review