{"title":"Calibration and validation of EchoMRI™ whole body composition analysis based on chemical analysis of piglets, in comparison with the same for DXA.","authors":"Israel Kovner, Gersh Z Taicher, Alva D Mitchell","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A study was conducted to appraise a new EchoMRI™ device for body composition analysis (BCA) of infants and to compare it with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), using chemical analysis as a reference method.The calibration part of the study included cross-validation comparisons between EchoMRI™ measurements of awake, anesthetized and dead piglets of the calibration set. It also included comparison of two different approaches to refining the calibration of EchoMRI™, by low- or by high-dimensional linear regressions. Only the low-dimensional approach was applied to DXA.The validation part yielded EchoMRI™ accuracy of 27 g and 70 g for fat and total water, respectively, on piglets scanned while anesthetized, as compared with 24 g and 57 g, respectively, for DXA.EchoMRI™ precision was found to be 4 g and 7 g for fat and total water, respectively, for anesthetized piglets, as compared to 16 g and 14 g, respectively, for DXA. The differences between fat measurements of awake, anesthetized and dead piglets can be statistically significant, but are comparable in magnitude to random errors.To summarize: Characterization of random errors by CV, especially that of fat, is not suitable for BCA, whereas absolute errors or errors relative to total body weight can be applicable. Low- and high-dimensional regressions offer nearly the same accuracy improvements. Improved DXA and EchoMRI™ offer nearly the same accuracy, within 1% of weight in fat, while EchoMRI™ has better precision, within 0.2 % of weight in fat for anesthetized and dead piglets as compared to DXA's 0.5-0.6%.</p>","PeriodicalId":87474,"journal":{"name":"International journal of body composition research","volume":"8 1","pages":"17-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998350/pdf/nihms226797.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of body composition research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A study was conducted to appraise a new EchoMRI™ device for body composition analysis (BCA) of infants and to compare it with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), using chemical analysis as a reference method.The calibration part of the study included cross-validation comparisons between EchoMRI™ measurements of awake, anesthetized and dead piglets of the calibration set. It also included comparison of two different approaches to refining the calibration of EchoMRI™, by low- or by high-dimensional linear regressions. Only the low-dimensional approach was applied to DXA.The validation part yielded EchoMRI™ accuracy of 27 g and 70 g for fat and total water, respectively, on piglets scanned while anesthetized, as compared with 24 g and 57 g, respectively, for DXA.EchoMRI™ precision was found to be 4 g and 7 g for fat and total water, respectively, for anesthetized piglets, as compared to 16 g and 14 g, respectively, for DXA. The differences between fat measurements of awake, anesthetized and dead piglets can be statistically significant, but are comparable in magnitude to random errors.To summarize: Characterization of random errors by CV, especially that of fat, is not suitable for BCA, whereas absolute errors or errors relative to total body weight can be applicable. Low- and high-dimensional regressions offer nearly the same accuracy improvements. Improved DXA and EchoMRI™ offer nearly the same accuracy, within 1% of weight in fat, while EchoMRI™ has better precision, within 0.2 % of weight in fat for anesthetized and dead piglets as compared to DXA's 0.5-0.6%.