The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity and reliability of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for the assessment of abdominal adiposity
Abstract
A number of methods exist for the estimation of abdominal obesity, ranging from waist-to-hip ratio to computed tomography (CT). Although dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was originally used to measure bone density and total body composition, recent improvements in software allow it to determine abdominal fat mass. Sixty-five men and women aged 18–72 yr participated in a series of studies to examine the validity and reliability of the DXA to accurately measure abdominal fat. Total body fat and abdominal regional fat were measured by DXA using a Lunar DPX-IQ. Multislice CT scans were performed between L1 and L4 vertebral bodies (region of interest) using a Picker PQ5000 CT scanner, and volumetric analyses were carried out on a Voxel Q workstation. Both abdominal total tissue mass ( P = 0.02) and abdominal fat mass ( P < 0.0001) in the L1–L4 region of interest were significantly lower as measured by DXA compared with multislice CT. However, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated good concordance between DXA and CT for abdominal total tissue mass (i.e., limits of agreement = −1.56–2.54 kg) and fat mass (i.e., limits of agreement = −0.40–1.94 kg). DXA also showed excellent reliability among three different operators to determine total, fat, and lean body mass in the L1–L4 region of interest (intraclass correlations, R = 0.94, 0.97, and 0.89, respectively). In conclusion, the DXA L1–L4 region of interest compared with CT proved to be both reliable and accurate method to determine abdominal obesity.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Assessing Adiposity: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
Cornier, M.-A., Després, J.-P., Davis, N., Grossniklaus, D. A., Klein, S., Lamarche, B., Lopez-Jimenez, F., Rao, G., St-Onge, M.-P., Towfighi, A., et al. (2011) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e318233bc6a · Cited by 945
Sex Differences in Body Composition
Bredella, M. A. (2017) · Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70178-3_2 · Cited by 523
Carbohydrate Restriction has a More Favorable Impact on the Metabolic Syndrome than a Low Fat Diet
Volek, J. S., Phinney, S. D., Forsythe, C. E., Quann, E. E., Wood, R. J., Puglisi, M. J., Kraemer, W. J., Bibus, D. M., Fernandez, M. L., & Feinman, R. D. (2009) · Lipids · doi:10.1007/s11745-008-3274-2 · Cited by 397
Nana, A., Slater, G. J., Stewart, A. D., & Burke, L. M. (2015) · International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism · doi:10.1123/ijsnem.2013-0228 · Cited by 372
Bredella, M. A., Ghomi, R. H., Thomas, B. J., Torriani, M., Brick, D. J., Gerweck, A. V., Misra, M., Klibanski, A., & Miller, K. K. (2010) · Obesity · doi:10.1038/oby.2010.5 · Cited by 201
Metadata
- Authors
- Glickman, S. G., Marn, C. S., Supiano, M. A., & Dengel, D. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Physiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 509-514
- ISSN
- 0161-7567 (ISSN-L)
- 8750-7587
- 1522-1601
- OpenAlex
- W2144369298
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.94
- 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.