Validity of single‐site and multi‐site models for estimating body composition of women using near‐infrared interactance

The purpose of this study was to develop a multi‐site near‐infrared (NIR) model (Model I) and compare its predictive accuracy to single‐site models (IIA and IIB). In Model I, the sum of two optical density (OD) measures (Σ2OD), age, body weight, height, and physical activity level were used as potential predictors of body density (D b ). In Model IIA, the variables used in the manufacturer's NIR equation (biceps OD 1 and OD 2 , body weight, height, gender, and physical activity level) were the potential predictors. This model was modified by including age as an additional potential predictor in Model IIB. We also examined the test‐retest reliability and interrelationships of OD measures taken at 10 anatomical sites, as well as the validity of the manufacturer's NIR equation, for estimating body composition of women. The subjects, 148 women between 20 and 72 years, were hydrostatically weighed to determine criterion D b . The Futrex‐5000 was used to measure OD 1 and OD 2 at 10 anatomical sites. Only two sites (pectoral OD 2 and biceps OD 2 ) contributed significantly to the variance in D b . Thus, the sum of these two ODs (Σ2OD), was used as a potential predictor in the multi‐site model. Test‐retest reliability was high, with intraclass correlation coefficients ≥0.85 for many of the OD measurements. Intercorrelations of ODs ranged from 0.22 to 0.91. In the multi‐site model (I), ΣOD, body weight, age, and height were significant predictors, accounting for 85.7% of the variance in D b . The SEE was 0.0076 g/ml or 3.3% BF. In the manufacturer's model (IIA), biceps OD 2 , body weight, and height accounted for 76.3% of the variance in D b , and the SEE was 0.0094 g/ml (4.1% BF). When age was included as a predictor (Model IIB), the R 2 increased (86.0%) and the SEE (0.0073 g/ml or 3.1% BF) decreased substantially. Cross‐validation of the three equations yielded r 2 s ranging between 0.688 (Model IIA) and 0.748 (Model I) and slightly larger SEEs (0.0094–0.001048 g/ml). There were no significant differences between average criterion D b and predicted D b for each equation. The manufacturer's equation programmed in the Futrex‐5000 yielded a lower r 2 (0.55), higher SEE (5.61% BF), and significantly underestimated criterion % BF by an average of 3% BF. Either the multi‐site (model I) or single‐site (Model IIB) equations is recommended to estimate body composition of this population. © 1992 Wiley‐Liss, Inc

Animal science · Biceps · Biology · Body weight · Correlation · Explained variation · Geometry · Hydrostatic weighing · Intraclass correlation · Near-infrared spectroscopy · Physics · Psychometrics · Statistics · Thermodynamics · Body Composition Measurement Techniques · Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy · Mathematics · Medicine · Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques · Psychology · Internal Medicine · Surgery

• Energetic factors and seasonal changes in ovarian function in women from rural Poland

  Open Access•G Jasienska, Peter M Elias et al.•American Journal of Human Biology•2004

  Add to list

• Determination of body volume in normal adults and in patients with cerebral palsy by the sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) dilution technique

  Open Access•Komei Hattori, Akira Matsuzaka et al.•American Journal of Human Biology•1994

  Add to list

• Densitometric Analysis of Body Composition

  Open Access•Josef Brozek, FRANCISCO GRANDE et al.•Annals of the New York Academy of…•1963

  Add to list

• Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement Between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement

  Open Access•J Martin Bland, DouglasG Altman•The Lancet•1986

  Add to list