Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Skeletal muscle mass: evaluation of neutron activation and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry methods

Wang, Z. M., Visser, M., Ma, R., Baumgartner, R. N., Kotler, D., Gallagher, D., Heymsfield, S. B.·1996·Journal of Applied Physiology
DOI 10.1152/jappl.1996.80.3.824
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although skeletal muscle (SM) is a major body component, whole body measurement methods remain limited and inadequately investigated. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the Burkinshaw in vivo neutron activation analysis (IVNA)-whole body 40K-counting and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) methods of estimating SM by comparison to adipose tissue-free SM measured using multiscan computerized axial tomography (CT). In the Burkinshaw method the potassium-to-nitrogen ratios of SM and non-SM lean tissue are assumed constant; in the DXA method the ratio of appendicular SM to total SM is assumed constant at 0.75. Seventeen healthy men [77.5 +/- 13.8 (SD) kg body wt] and eight men with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS; 65.5 +/- 7.6 kg) completed CT, IVNA, and DXA studies. SM measured by CT was 34.4 +/- 6.2 kg for the healthy subjects and 27.2 +/- 4.0 kg for the AIDS patients. Compared with CT, the Burkinshaw method underestimated SM by an average of 6.9 kg (20.1%, P = 0.0001) and 6.3 kg (23.2%, P = 0.01) in the healthy men and the men with AIDS, respectively. The DXA method minimally overestimated SM in both groups (2.0 kg and 5.8% in healthy men, P = 0.001; 1.4 kg and 5.1% in men with AIDS, P = 0.16). This overestimate could be explained by a higher actual than assumed ratio of DXA-measured appendicular SM to total body SM (actual = 0.79 +/- 0.05, assumed = 0.75). The current study results reveal that large errors are present in the Burkinshaw SM method and that substantial refinements in the models that form the basis of this IVNA approach are needed. The model on which the DXA-SM method is based also needs further minor refinements, but this is a promising in vivo approach because of less radiation exposure and lower cost than the IVNA and CT methods.

Overview

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 · 10.1152/jappl.1996.80.3.824

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Z. M., Visser, M., Ma, R., Baumgartner, R. N., Kotler, D., Gallagher, D., & Heymsfield, S. B.
Venue
Journal of Applied Physiology
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
1996-03-01
Volume
80
Issue
3
Pages
824-831
ISSN
  • 0161-7567 (ISSN-L)
  • 8750-7587
  • 1522-1601
DOI
10.1152/jappl.1996.80.3.824
OpenAlex
W1915611504
Cited by
256
References
0
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.