TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation of a three-dimensional body scanner for body composition measures
AU - Harbin, Michelle M.
AU - Kasak, Alexander
AU - Ostrem, Joseph D.
AU - Dengel, Donald R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2018/8/1
Y1 - 2018/8/1
N2 - The accuracy of an infrared three-dimensional (3D) body scanner in determining body composition was compared against hydrostatic weighing (HW), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and anthropometry. A total of 265 adults (119 males; age = 22.1 ± 2.5 years; body mass index = 24.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2) had their body fat percent (BF%) estimated from 3D scanning, HW, BIA, skinfolds, and girths. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences among methods (p < 0.001). Multivariate ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of sex and method (p < 0.001), with a non-significant interaction (p = 0.101). Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons identified that BF% from 3D scanning (18.1 ± 7.8%) was significantly less than HW (22.8 ± 8.5%, p < 0.001), BIA (20.1 ± 9.1%, p < 0.001), skinfolds (19.7 ± 9.7%, p < 0.001), and girths (21.2 ± 10.4%, p < 0.001). The 3D scanner decreased in precision with increasing adiposity, potentially resulting from inconsistences in the 3D scanner’s analysis algorithm. A correction factor within the algorithm is required before infrared 3D scanning can be considered valid in measuring BF%.
AB - The accuracy of an infrared three-dimensional (3D) body scanner in determining body composition was compared against hydrostatic weighing (HW), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and anthropometry. A total of 265 adults (119 males; age = 22.1 ± 2.5 years; body mass index = 24.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2) had their body fat percent (BF%) estimated from 3D scanning, HW, BIA, skinfolds, and girths. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences among methods (p < 0.001). Multivariate ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of sex and method (p < 0.001), with a non-significant interaction (p = 0.101). Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons identified that BF% from 3D scanning (18.1 ± 7.8%) was significantly less than HW (22.8 ± 8.5%, p < 0.001), BIA (20.1 ± 9.1%, p < 0.001), skinfolds (19.7 ± 9.7%, p < 0.001), and girths (21.2 ± 10.4%, p < 0.001). The 3D scanner decreased in precision with increasing adiposity, potentially resulting from inconsistences in the 3D scanner’s analysis algorithm. A correction factor within the algorithm is required before infrared 3D scanning can be considered valid in measuring BF%.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85039748954&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85039748954&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41430-017-0046-1
DO - 10.1038/s41430-017-0046-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 29288245
AN - SCOPUS:85039748954
SN - 0954-3007
VL - 72
SP - 1191
EP - 1194
JO - European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
JF - European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
IS - 8
ER -