The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Prediction of fat-free mass in a multi-ethnic cohort of infants using bioelectrical impedance: validation against the PEA POD.

Prediction of fat-free mass in a multi-ethnic cohort of infants using bioelectrical impedance: validation against the PEA POD.
Prediction of fat-free mass in a multi-ethnic cohort of infants using bioelectrical impedance: validation against the PEA POD.

Background: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is widely used to measure body composition but has not been adequately evaluated in infancy. Prior studies have largely been of poor quality, and few included healthy term-born offspring, so it is unclear if BIA can accurately predict body composition at this age. Aim: This study evaluated impedance technology to predict fat-free mass (FFM) among a large multi-ethnic cohort of infants from the United Kingdom, Singapore, and New Zealand at ages 6 weeks and 6 months (n = 292 and 212, respectively). Materials and methods: Using air displacement plethysmography (PEA POD) as the reference, two impedance approaches were evaluated: (1) empirical prediction equations; (2) Cole modeling and mixture theory prediction. Sex-specific equations were developed among ∼70% of the cohort. Equations were validated in the remaining ∼30% and in an independent University of Queensland cohort. Mixture theory estimates of FFM were validated using the entire cohort at both ages. Results: Sex-specific equations based on weight and length explained 75–81% of FFM variance at 6 weeks but only 48–57% at 6 months. At both ages, the margin of error for these equations was 5–6% of mean FFM, as assessed by the root mean squared errors (RMSE). The stepwise addition of clinically-relevant covariates (i.e., gestational age, birthweight SDS, subscapular skinfold thickness, abdominal circumference) improved model accuracy (i.e., lowered RMSE). However, improvements in model accuracy were not consistently observed when impedance parameters (as the impedance index) were incorporated instead of length. The bioimpedance equations had mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) < 5% when validated. Limits of agreement analyses showed that biases were low (< 100 g) and limits of agreement were narrower for bioimpedance-based than anthropometry-based equations, with no clear benefit following the addition of clinically-relevant variables. Estimates of FFM from BIS mixture theory prediction were inaccurate (MAPE 11–12%). Conclusion: The addition of the impedance index improved the accuracy of empirical FFM predictions. However, improvements were modest, so the benefits of using bioimpedance in the field remain unclear and require further investigation. Mixture theory prediction of FFM from BIS is inaccurate in infancy and cannot be recommended.

air displacement plethysmography (ADP), bias, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS), body composition, fat-free mass (FFM), validation
2296-861X
Lyons-Reid, Jaz
0cf7e7b8-ffe9-4ef5-ba37-56b571eaa926
Ward, Leigh C.
68d08d29-e7dd-4ac5-b14c-0fdb9bab70d9
Derraik, José G.B.
006119b3-8592-4cf9-975d-1bd34583f669
Tint, Mya Thway
3aaf54db-4dbd-4d6b-90ae-440a18e381ef
Monnard, Cathriona R.
7e35577b-d179-423d-b5a7-c386d290c661
Ramos Nieves, Jose M.
84cce1a1-9bf2-4d1e-87a5-a21e2f2bd075
Albert, Benjamin B.
c2bf4926-6214-421d-b187-91c83966effc
Kenealy, Timothy
c032e16b-65a8-4156-bc79-422f6c0e7079
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
Ward, Leigh C.
68d08d29-e7dd-4ac5-b14c-0fdb9bab70d9
Derraik, José G.B.
006119b3-8592-4cf9-975d-1bd34583f669
Tint, Mya Thway
3aaf54db-4dbd-4d6b-90ae-440a18e381ef
Monnard, Cathriona R.
7e35577b-d179-423d-b5a7-c386d290c661
Ramos Nieves, Jose M.
84cce1a1-9bf2-4d1e-87a5-a21e2f2bd075
Albert, Benjamin B.
c2bf4926-6214-421d-b187-91c83966effc
Kenealy, Timothy
c032e16b-65a8-4156-bc79-422f6c0e7079
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, Ward, Leigh C., Derraik, José G.B., Tint, Mya Thway, Monnard, Cathriona R., Ramos Nieves, Jose M., Albert, Benjamin B., Kenealy, Timothy, Godfrey, Keith, Chan, Shiao-Yng and Cutfield, Wayne (2022) Prediction of fat-free mass in a multi-ethnic cohort of infants using bioelectrical impedance: validation against the PEA POD. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, [980790]. (doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.980790).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is widely used to measure body composition but has not been adequately evaluated in infancy. Prior studies have largely been of poor quality, and few included healthy term-born offspring, so it is unclear if BIA can accurately predict body composition at this age. Aim: This study evaluated impedance technology to predict fat-free mass (FFM) among a large multi-ethnic cohort of infants from the United Kingdom, Singapore, and New Zealand at ages 6 weeks and 6 months (n = 292 and 212, respectively). Materials and methods: Using air displacement plethysmography (PEA POD) as the reference, two impedance approaches were evaluated: (1) empirical prediction equations; (2) Cole modeling and mixture theory prediction. Sex-specific equations were developed among ∼70% of the cohort. Equations were validated in the remaining ∼30% and in an independent University of Queensland cohort. Mixture theory estimates of FFM were validated using the entire cohort at both ages. Results: Sex-specific equations based on weight and length explained 75–81% of FFM variance at 6 weeks but only 48–57% at 6 months. At both ages, the margin of error for these equations was 5–6% of mean FFM, as assessed by the root mean squared errors (RMSE). The stepwise addition of clinically-relevant covariates (i.e., gestational age, birthweight SDS, subscapular skinfold thickness, abdominal circumference) improved model accuracy (i.e., lowered RMSE). However, improvements in model accuracy were not consistently observed when impedance parameters (as the impedance index) were incorporated instead of length. The bioimpedance equations had mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) < 5% when validated. Limits of agreement analyses showed that biases were low (< 100 g) and limits of agreement were narrower for bioimpedance-based than anthropometry-based equations, with no clear benefit following the addition of clinically-relevant variables. Estimates of FFM from BIS mixture theory prediction were inaccurate (MAPE 11–12%). Conclusion: The addition of the impedance index improved the accuracy of empirical FFM predictions. However, improvements were modest, so the benefits of using bioimpedance in the field remain unclear and require further investigation. Mixture theory prediction of FFM from BIS is inaccurate in infancy and cannot be recommended.

Text
fnut-09-980790 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (6MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 12 September 2022
e-pub ahead of print date: 13 October 2022
Published date: 13 October 2022
Additional Information: Funding Information: Public good funding for the investigator-led NiPPeR study is through the UK Medical Research Council [as part of an MRC award to the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_12011/4)]; the Singapore National Research Foundation, National Medical Research Council (NMRC, NMRC/TCR/012-NUHS/2014); the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Agency of Science, Technology, and Research [as part of the Growth, Development, and Metabolism Program of the Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences (SICS) (H17/01/a0/005)]; and as part of Gravida, a New Zealand Government Centre of Research Excellence. Funding for aspects of the NiPPeR study has been provided by Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A under a Research Agreement with the University of Southampton, Auckland UniServices Ltd., SICS, National University Hospital Singapore PTE Ltd., and NUS. Funding Information: The authors would like to acknowledge NiPPeR research staff for their contribution to this study, Barbara Lingwood for providing access to her data to enable external validation of the bioimpedance equations, and Zeke Wang for providing statistical advice. JL-R was supported by a University of Auckland Doctoral Scholarship. KG was supported by the National Institute for Health Research [NIHR Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0515-10042), NIHR Southampton 1000DaysPlus Global Nutrition Research Group (17/63/154) and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Center (IS-BRC-1215-20004)], British Heart Foundation (RG/15/17/3174), and the European Union (Erasmus+Program ImpENSA 598488-EPP-1-2018-1-DE-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP). S-YC was supported by a Singapore NMRC Clinician Scientist Award (NMRC/CSA-INV/0010/2016 and MOH-CSAINV19nov-0002). The funders had no role in the data collection and analysis, and the decision to submit for publication. Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2022 Lyons-Reid, Ward, Derraik, Tint, Monnard, Ramos Nieves, Albert, Kenealy, Godfrey, Chan and Cutfield.
Keywords: air displacement plethysmography (ADP), bias, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS), body composition, fat-free mass (FFM), validation

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 472010
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/472010
ISSN: 2296-861X
PURE UUID: 32327d7c-f641-44e9-9046-aea6ec0f1ca3
ORCID for Keith Godfrey: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4643-0618

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Nov 2022 17:58
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 02:38

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Jaz Lyons-Reid
Author: Leigh C. Ward
Author: José G.B. Derraik
Author: Mya Thway Tint
Author: Cathriona R. Monnard
Author: Jose M. Ramos Nieves
Author: Benjamin B. Albert
Author: Timothy Kenealy
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.

×