Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul 3;12(7):e0180201.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180201. eCollection 2017.

Validity and reliability of total body volume and relative body fat mass from a 3-dimensional photonic body surface scanner

Carolin Adler  1 , Astrid Steinbrecher  1 , Lina Jaeschke  1 , Anja Mähler  2 , Michael Boschmann  2 , Stephanie Jeran  1 , Tobias Pischon  1   3   4
Affiliations

Validity and reliability of total body volume and relative body fat mass from a 3-dimensional photonic body surface scanner

Carolin Adler et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: Three-dimensional photonic body surface scanners (3DPS) feature a tool to estimate total body volume (BV) from 3D images of the human body, from which the relative body fat mass (%BF) can be calculated. However, information on validity and reliability of these measurements for application in epidemiological studies is limited.

Methods: Validity was assessed among 32 participants (men, 50%) aged 20-58 years. BV and %BF were assessed using a 3DPS (VitusSmart XXL) and air displacement plethysmography (ADP) with a BOD POD® device using equations by Siri and Brozek. Three scans were obtained per participant (standard, relaxed, exhaled scan). Validity was evaluated based on the agreement of 3DPS with ADP using Bland Altman plots, correlation analysis and Wilcoxon signed ranks test for paired samples. Reliability was investigated in a separate sample of 18 participants (men, 67%) aged 25-66 years using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) based on two repeated 3DPS measurements four weeks apart.

Results: Mean BV and %BF were higher using 3DPS compared to ADP, (3DPS-ADP BV difference 1.1 ± 0.9 L, p<0.01; %BF difference 7.0 ± 5.6, p<0.01), yet the disagreement was not associated with gender, age or body mass index (BMI). Reliability was excellent for 3DPS BV (ICC, 0.998) and good for 3DPS %BF (ICC, 0.982). Results were similar for the standard scan and the relaxed scan but somewhat weaker for the exhaled scan.

Conclusions: Although BV and %BF are higher than ADP measurements, our data indicate good validity and reliability for an application of 3DPS in epidemiological studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Body volume measurement agreement between 3D photonic body surface standard scan and air-displacement plethysmography (N = 32).
(a) Body volume measured by 3DPS and ADP plotted on the regression line. Dashed line: line of identity (y = 1*x + 0). (b) Differences in body volume measurements from 3DPS and ADP plotted against their mean. Solid line: mean measurement difference (3DPS–ADP), dashed lines: limits of agreement.
Fig 2
Fig 2. %Body fat measurement differences between 3D photonic body surface standard scan and air-displacement plethysmography (N = 31).
(a) %Body fat estimated from 3DPS and ADP plotted on the regression line. Dashed line: line of identity (y = 1*x + 0). (b) Differences in %body fat measurements from 3DPS and ADP plotted against their mean. Solid line: mean measurement difference (3DPS–ADP), dashed lines: limits of agreement.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Collaborators GBDRF, Forouzanfar MH, Alexander L, Anderson HR, Bachman VF, Biryukov S, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015; 386: 2287–2323. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00128-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Organization WH. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2000; 894: i–xii, 1–253. - PubMed
    1. NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel on the Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Obesity in Adults (US). Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: The Evidence Report. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Bethesda (MD) 1998. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/obesity/pdf/. (accessed 11 December 2016).
    1. Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, Ascherio A, Spiegelman D, Colditz GA, et al. Body size and fat distribution as predictors of coronary heart disease among middle-aged and older US men. Am J Epidemiol. 1995; 141: 1117–1127. - PubMed
    1. Choo V. WHO reassesses appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations. Lancet. 2002; 360: 235. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources