Calibration and validation of EchoMRI™ whole body composition analysis based on chemical analysis of piglets, in comparison with the same for DXA.

Israel Kovner, Gersh Z Taicher, Alva D Mitchell
{"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,&nbsp;Gersh Z Taicher,&nbsp;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%.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于仔猪化学分析的EchoMRI™全身成分分析的校准和验证,并与DXA进行比较。
本研究以化学分析作为参考方法,对一种用于婴儿身体成分分析(BCA)的新型EchoMRI™设备进行了评估,并将其与双能x射线吸收仪(DXA)进行了比较。研究的校准部分包括对校准集的清醒仔猪、麻醉仔猪和死仔猪的EchoMRI™测量值进行交叉验证比较。它还包括通过低维或高维线性回归来改进EchoMRI™校准的两种不同方法的比较。DXA仅采用低维方法。验证部分对麻醉时扫描的仔猪的EchoMRI™脂肪和总水的准确度分别为27 g和70 g,而DXA的准确度分别为24 g和57 g。EchoMRI™的精密度对麻醉仔猪的脂肪和总水分别为4 g和7 g,而DXA的精密度分别为16 g和14 g。醒着仔猪、麻醉仔猪和死仔猪的脂肪测量值之间的差异可能具有统计学意义,但在大小上与随机误差相当。综上所述:用CV来表征随机误差,尤其是脂肪的随机误差,并不适用于BCA,而绝对误差或相对于总体重的误差是适用的。低维和高维回归提供了几乎相同的精度改进。改进的DXA和EchoMRI™提供几乎相同的准确度,在脂肪重量的1%以内,而EchoMRI™具有更好的精度,在麻醉和死仔猪的脂肪重量的0.2%以内,而DXA的精确度为0.5-0.6%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Atypical antipsychotic drugs inhibit trabecular bone accrual in C57BL/6J mice. Chemical-shift water-fat MRI of white adipose depots: inability to resolve cell size differences. Estimation of whole body fat from appendicular soft tissue from peripheral quantitative computed tomography in adolescent girls. Improved body composition assessment using biceps skinfold and physical activity score in premenarcheal girls: a DXA-based validation study. Anthropometric indices as measures of body fat assessed by DXA in relation to cardiovascular risk factors in children and adolescents: NHANES 1999-2004.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1