CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Body Composition Measurement TechniquesBone health and osteoporosis researchHIV-related health complications and treatments

Impact of bone mineral estimates on percent fat estimates from a four-component model

MODLESKY, CHRISTOPHER M., EVANS, ELLEN M., MILLARD-STAFFORD, MINDY L., COLLINS, MITCHELL A., LEWIS, RICHARD D., CURETON, KIRK J.·1999·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
DOI 10.1097/00005768-199912000-00026
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine the impact of bone mineral content (BMC) from QDR 1000/W and DPX-L dual-energy x-ray absorptiometers (DXA(QDR) and DXA(DPX-L) on percent fat (%fat) estimates from a four-component model. A secondary purpose was to test the accuracy of %fat estimates from DXA(QDR) and DXA(DPX-L) using %fat estimates from a four-component model as the criterion. METHODS: Percent fat, fat mass, and fat-free mass (FFM) were determined from DXA(QDR) and DXA(DPX-L) and from a four-component model based on measures of body density from underwater weighing, body water from deuterium dilution, and BMC from DXA(QDR) (4C(QDR)) or DXA(DPX-L) (4C(DPX-L)) in young men (N = 14) and women (N = 10). RESULTS: BMC was significantly lower using DXA(QDR) compared with DXA(DPX-L) (approximately 11%), resulting in slightly lower estimates of %fat and fat mass and slightly higher estimates of FFM from 4C(QDR) than 4C(DPX-L). Although estimates of %fat, fat mass, and FFM from DXA(QDR) and DXA(DPX-L) were not different than those from a four-component model, there was considerable individual variability between methods. Furthermore, %fat from DXA(QDR) was lower than %fat from 4C(DPX-L). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that using BMC from different DXA instruments has a minimal impact on %fat, fat mass, and FFM estimates from a four-component model. The large variability in %fat estimates between the two DXA instruments and those from a four-component model does not support DXA as a criterion method of body composition. Further studies involving larger sample sizes and specific population groups are needed to assess the validity of body composition measurements from DXA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005768-199912000-00026

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
MODLESKY, C. M., EVANS, E. M., MILLARD-STAFFORD, M. L., COLLINS, M. A., LEWIS, R. D., & CURETON, K. J.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1999-12
Volume
31
Issue
12
Pages
1861
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00005768-199912000-00026
OpenAlex
W2090377885
Cited by
24
References
32
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › HIV-related health complications and treatments
Keywords
dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, bone mineral content, four-component model, body composition, fat mass, fat-free mass, underwater weighing, deuterium dilution, young men and women
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Composition, Body Water, Female, Humans, Male, Methods, Models, Theoretical, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density

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