The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Cross-calibration of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry devices for the measurement of body composition in young children.

Cross-calibration of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry devices for the measurement of body composition in young children.
Cross-calibration of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry devices for the measurement of body composition in young children.
This study aimed to cross-calibrate body composition measures from the GE Lunar Prodigy and GE Lunar iDXA in a cohort of young children. 28 children (mean age 3.4 years) were measured on the iDXA followed by the Prodigy. Prodigy scans were subsequently reanalysed using enCORE v17 enhanced analysis (“Prodigy enhanced”). Body composition parameters were compared across three evaluation methods (Prodigy, Prodigy enhanced, iDXA), and adjustment equations were developed. There were differences in the three evaluation methods for all body composition parameters. Body fat percentage (%BF) from the iDXA was approximately 1.5-fold greater than the Prodigy, whereas bone mineral density (BMD) was approximately 20% lower. Reanalysis of Prodigy scans with enhanced software attenuated these differences (%BF: − 5.2% [95% CI − 3.5, − 6.8]; and BMD: 1.0% [95% CI 0.0, 1.9]), although significant differences remained for all parameters except total body less head (TBLH) total mass and TBLH BMD, and some regional estimates. There were large differences between the Prodigy and iDXA, with these differences related both to scan resolution and software. Reanalysis of Prodigy scans with enhanced analysis resulted in body composition values much closer to those obtained on the iDXA, although differences remained. As manufacturers update models and software, researchers and clinicians need to be aware of the impact this may have on the longitudinal assessment of body composition, as results may not be comparable across devices and software versions.
2045-2322
Lyons-Reid, Jaz
0cf7e7b8-ffe9-4ef5-ba37-56b571eaa926
Kenealy, Timothy
c032e16b-65a8-4156-bc79-422f6c0e7079
Albert, Benjamin B.
c2bf4926-6214-421d-b187-91c83966effc
Ward, Kate
39bd4db1-c948-4e32-930e-7bec8deb54c7
Harvey, Nicholas
ce487fb4-d360-4aac-9d17-9466d6cba145
Godfrey, Keith
0931701e-fe2c-44b5-8f0d-ec5c7477a6fd
Chan, Shiao-Yng
3c9d8970-2cc4-430a-86a7-96f6029a5293
Cutfield, Wayne
a01589bd-5b82-49fa-89e1-137e6f59e24d
Lyons-Reid, Jaz
0cf7e7b8-ffe9-4ef5-ba37-56b571eaa926
Kenealy, Timothy
c032e16b-65a8-4156-bc79-422f6c0e7079
Albert, Benjamin B.
c2bf4926-6214-421d-b187-91c83966effc
Ward, Kate
39bd4db1-c948-4e32-930e-7bec8deb54c7
Harvey, Nicholas
ce487fb4-d360-4aac-9d17-9466d6cba145
Godfrey, Keith
0931701e-fe2c-44b5-8f0d-ec5c7477a6fd
Chan, Shiao-Yng
3c9d8970-2cc4-430a-86a7-96f6029a5293
Cutfield, Wayne
a01589bd-5b82-49fa-89e1-137e6f59e24d

Lyons-Reid, Jaz, Kenealy, Timothy, Albert, Benjamin B., Ward, Kate, Harvey, Nicholas, Godfrey, Keith, Chan, Shiao-Yng and Cutfield, Wayne (2022) Cross-calibration of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry devices for the measurement of body composition in young children. Scientific Reports, 12 (13862). (doi:10.1038/s41598-022-17711-0.).

Record type: Article

Abstract

This study aimed to cross-calibrate body composition measures from the GE Lunar Prodigy and GE Lunar iDXA in a cohort of young children. 28 children (mean age 3.4 years) were measured on the iDXA followed by the Prodigy. Prodigy scans were subsequently reanalysed using enCORE v17 enhanced analysis (“Prodigy enhanced”). Body composition parameters were compared across three evaluation methods (Prodigy, Prodigy enhanced, iDXA), and adjustment equations were developed. There were differences in the three evaluation methods for all body composition parameters. Body fat percentage (%BF) from the iDXA was approximately 1.5-fold greater than the Prodigy, whereas bone mineral density (BMD) was approximately 20% lower. Reanalysis of Prodigy scans with enhanced software attenuated these differences (%BF: − 5.2% [95% CI − 3.5, − 6.8]; and BMD: 1.0% [95% CI 0.0, 1.9]), although significant differences remained for all parameters except total body less head (TBLH) total mass and TBLH BMD, and some regional estimates. There were large differences between the Prodigy and iDXA, with these differences related both to scan resolution and software. Reanalysis of Prodigy scans with enhanced analysis resulted in body composition values much closer to those obtained on the iDXA, although differences remained. As manufacturers update models and software, researchers and clinicians need to be aware of the impact this may have on the longitudinal assessment of body composition, as results may not be comparable across devices and software versions.

Text
DXA Calibration_final_rev1_20220719_clean - Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
Text
s41598-022-17711-0 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 29 July 2022
Published date: 16 August 2022

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 469818
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/469818
ISSN: 2045-2322
PURE UUID: 41247211-a8e3-4db2-8343-112fb044937e
ORCID for Kate Ward: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7034-6750
ORCID for Nicholas Harvey: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8194-2512
ORCID for Keith Godfrey: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4643-0618

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 26 Sep 2022 16:55
Last modified: 23 Feb 2024 02:51

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Jaz Lyons-Reid
Author: Timothy Kenealy
Author: Benjamin B. Albert
Author: Kate Ward ORCID iD
Author: Nicholas Harvey ORCID iD
Author: Keith Godfrey ORCID iD
Author: Shiao-Yng Chan
Author: Wayne Cutfield

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×