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

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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信