Premium
Evaluation of Novel Hand‐held Wireless Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) Body Composition Devices
Author(s) -
Heymsfield Steven,
Zheng Jolene,
Wang Mingming,
Gao Chenfei,
Kim Justin YoungHyun,
Choi Ahyoung,
Wook Jo Seong,
Oh JungTaek,
Cho Jaegeol,
Bhagat Yusuf,
Kim Insoo
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.29.1_supplement.747.2
Subject(s) - bioelectrical impedance analysis , overweight , underweight , body area network , lean body mass , biomedical engineering , medicine , wireless , body weight , computer science , telecommunications , body mass index
Body fat and skeletal muscle mass measurement is of increasing interest in the clinical setting and the general public. The study aim was to evaluate the feasibility of developing small portable wireless contact‐electrode BIA systems designed for personal body composition analysis. Three hand‐held multifrequency devices were evaluated that included 4 electrode configurations (palm‐to‐palm [PP], 2 finger‐finger configurations [FF1, FF2], palm‐to‐knee [PK]). Device‐derived impedance values were evaluated against corresponding electrical pathways and whole‐body electrical circuits measured using a gel‐electrode reference BIA system [IB] (InBody, Seoul, Korea) in 311 adults (117 M, 194 F) stratified into underweight (BMI<20 kg/m 2 ), normal‐overweight (>20‐30 kg/m 2 ) and obese (>30 kg/m 2 ) groups. Additionally, the main lean and fat‐predictor variable height 2 /Z was examined relative to lean soft tissue mass (LST) evaluated with DXA (Prodigy, GE Lunar, Madison, WI). There were strong correlations between the 4 prototype pathways at 50 KHz and corresponding IB electrical pathways (Table; R 2 , 0.83‐0.96, p<0.0001). Similarly, height 2 /Z versus DXA LST regions for the 4‐prototype pathways yielded correlation coefficients that were similar to the reference InBody system. These novel BIA systems thus show promise as a means of quantifying an individual's body composition using small form factor mobile devices and to predict % fat without body weight measurement.Model I R 2 > Model II R 2 Model III R 2P vs. IB(R to L arm) 0.96 Ht 2 /Z, PP vs. DXA LST arms (L+R) 0.88 Ht 2 /Z, IB vs. DXA LST arms (L+R) 0.95 FF1 vs. IB(R to L arm) 0.94 Ht 2 /Z, FF1 vs. DXA LST arms (L+R) 0.88 Ht 2 /Z, IB (R side) vs. DXA LST (R side) 0.92 FF2 vs. IB(R to L arm) 0.94 Ht 2 /Z, FF2 vs. DXA LST arms (L+R) 0.89 Ht 2 /Z, IB (R side) vs. DXA (total) 0.93 P‐K vs. IB(R arm to R leg) 0.83 Ht 2 /Z, PK vs. DXA LST (R side) 0.87 Ht 2 /Z, PP vs. DXA LST (total) 0.90