CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111Body Composition Measurement TechniquesObesity, Physical Activity, DietRegulation of Appetite and Obesity

Multi-component molecular-level body composition reference methods: evolving concepts and future directions.

Open access
Heymsfield, S. B., Ebbeling, C. B., Zheng, J., Pietrobelli, A., Strauss, B. J., Silva, A. M., Ludwig, D. S.·2015·Obesity Reviews
DOI 10.1111/obr.12261PMC PMC4464774
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Excess adiposity is the main phenotypic feature that defines human obesity and that plays a pathophysiological role in most chronic diseases. Measuring the amount of fat mass present is thus a central aspect of studying obesity at the individual and population levels. Nevertheless, a consensus is lacking among investigators on a single accepted 'reference' approach for quantifying fat mass in vivo. While the research community generally relies on the multi-component body volume class of 'reference' models for quantifying fat mass, no definable guide discerns among different applied equations for partitioning the four (fat, water, protein and mineral mass) or more quantified components, standardizes 'adjustment' or measurement system approaches for model-required labelled water dilution volumes and bone mineral mass estimates, or firmly establishes the body temperature at which model physical properties are assumed. The resulting differing reference strategies for quantifying body composition in vivo leads to small, but under some circumstances, important differences in the amount of measured body fat. Recent technological advances highlight opportunities to expand model applications to new subject groups and measured components such as total body protein. The current report reviews the historical evolution of multi-component body volume-based methods in the context of prevailing uncertainties and future potential.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.12261

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The four-compartment model is the most suitable reference method to assess FM and FFM at the molecular level.

    “Although DXA cannot be considered the gold standard for the determination of FFM at the molecular level, and the four-compartment model (4C) is the most suitable reference method to assess FM and FFM at the molecular level (12), due to the complexity of the technique (13), the use of DXA to derive BIA equations has been widely accepted (14, 15).”

    From Development and Cross-Validation of a Predictive Equation for Fat-Free Mass in Brazilian Adolescents by Bioelectrical Impedance (2022) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Body Volume Approach section (page unavailable) says the four-component model improves the accuracy of body-fat estimates over two- and three-component models. But the Conclusions (page unavailable) say there is no agreed reference or gold-standard method. The paper therefore supports using the model as a reference for fat mass, not the stronger claim that it is the most suitable method for both FM and FFM. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The 4C model is the most appropriate reference method for assessing FM and FFM at the molecular level.

    “The 4C model is the most appropriate reference method for assessing FM and FFM at the molecular level (12).”

    From Development and Cross-Validation of a Predictive Equation for Fat-Free Mass in Brazilian Adolescents by Bioelectrical Impedance (2022) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Body Volume Approach section says the four-component model improves the accuracy of body-fat estimates over two- and three-component models. But the Conclusions state that there is no agreed reference or gold-standard method, so the paper does not establish the 4C model as the most appropriate method for assessing FM and FFM. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • DXA cannot be considered the gold standard for the determination of FFM at the molecular level.

    “Although DXA cannot be considered the gold standard for the determination of FFM at the molecular level, and the four-compartment model (4C) is the most suitable reference method to assess FM and FFM at the molecular level (12), due to the complexity of the technique (13), the use of DXA to derive BIA equations has been widely accepted (14, 15).”

    From Development and Cross-Validation of a Predictive Equation for Fat-Free Mass in Brazilian Adolescents by Bioelectrical Impedance (2022) · cites this paper as [12]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [59]Buskirk ER Underwater weighing and body density: A review of procedures Brožek J Henschel A Techniques for Measuring Body Composition National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Washington, DC 1961 90 106
  2. [76]Wilson JP Mulligan K Fan B Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-based body volume measurement for 4-compartment body composition Am J Clin Nutr 2012 95 25 31 22134952 PMC3238462

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Heymsfield, S. B., Ebbeling, C. B., Zheng, J., Pietrobelli, A., Strauss, B. J., Silva, A. M., & Ludwig, D. S.
Affiliations
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Centro Interdisciplinar de Estudo da Performance Humana (PT)
Corresponding author
Heymsfield, S. B.
ORCID
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02-03
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
282-294
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
DOI
10.1111/obr.12261
PMC
PMC4464774
OpenAlex
W1594872287
Cited by
111
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K24DK082730, P30DK040561)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
Keywords
body composition, reference method, obesity, excess adiposity, bone mineral mass, body temperature, total body protein
MeSH terms
Body Composition, Body Water, Cadaver, Humans, Models, Biological, Obesity, Reference Values, Absorptiometry, Photon, Body Mass Index

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