ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Validity between dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance for segmental fat analysis and a novel low-cost model developed using anthropometry in young adults.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and repeatability between manual anthropometry and mobile 3D digital anthropometry in young adults.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026Article
- Duplicate-Aware Internal Validation of Machine-Learning Models for Classifying a Tanita BIA-Derived High-Adiposity Phenotype Using Simple Anthropometric Predictors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of Muscle Function Decline and Cachexia-Related Biomarkers in Hospitalized Oncology Patients: Study Protocol.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Six Months of Bikram Yoga: Longitudinal Effects on Body Fat Reduction and Age-Related Responses in Adult Women.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Rethinking Energy Availability from Conceptual Models to Applied Practice: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Article
- Bioelectrical impedance analysis instruments: how do they differ, what do we need for clinical assessment?Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2025Review
- Impact of a Four-Week NCAA-Compliant Pre-Season Strength and Conditioning Program on Body Composition in NCAA Division II Women's Basketball.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- From fat to facts: Anthropometric references and centile curves for sum of skinfolds and waist-to-hip ratio in 2,507 adults.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate body fat distribution assessment is essential for managing cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders. Although several methods are available for segmental fat analysis, few studies have examined the validity of affordable methods such as Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) against the reference method, Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA). This study aimed to assess the validity of BIA as compared to DXA for segmental fat mass assessment, and to develop anthropometric multivariate regression models that offer a cost-effective alternative for health professionals in clinical and public health settings.
methodsCross-sectional study that included 264 young adults (161 males, mean age = 23.04 ± 5.61 years; and 103 females, mean age = 22.29 ± 5.98 years). Segmental fat mass was measured using DXA and BIA, and anthropometric measurements were collected following the ISAK protocol.
resultsSignificant differences were found between DXA and BIA for segmental fat mass (p < 0.001). Sex significantly influenced the results (p < 0.05), while BMI and hydration status had no significant impacts. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed significant differences (p < 0.001) between BIA and DXA for fat mass in the upper and lower limbs. Trunk fat mass also differed significantly in males and females (p < 0.001), except for the overall sample (p = 0.088). Anthropometric multivariate regression models showed a high predictive accuracy for both females (R²=0.766-0.910; p < 0.001) and males (R²=0.758-0.887; p < 0.001). Key predictors of segmental fat mass included body mass (r = 0.606-0.867; p < 0.001), skinfold thickness (r = 0.688-0.893; p < 0.001), and waist girth (r = 0.883 - 0.810; p < 0.001). Peripheral skinfolds were highly predictive for upper and lower limbs, while waist girth was relevant for trunk fat mass.
conclusionsDXA and BIA are not interchangeable for segmental fat analysis due to the significant differences observed. However, the anthropometric multivariate regression models developed provide a cost-effective and reliable alternative for predicting segmental fat mass in clinical settings where DXA is unavailable.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.