Development and validation of total and regional body composition prediction equations from anthropometry and single frequency segmental bioelectrical impedance with DEXA

The Fenland Study

New prediction models were derived and then validated in separate samples of the Fenland Study (DOI: 10.22025/2017.10.101.00001), a population-based cohort of adults recruited from general practice lists in Cambridgeshire, (Cambridge, Ely, Wisbech, and surrounding villages) in the UK⁵. In total 12,435 individuals (97.6% of European descent) born between 1950-1975 (age 29-65 years at recruitment) attended the baseline clinical examination in 2005-2015. This study was established to investigate the environmental and genetic risk factors for obesity and related co-morbidities. The study was approved by the Cambridge Local Research Ethics Committee (04/Q0108/19), and all participants gave written informed consent.

For the current analysis, we excluded individuals if essential measurements (age, height, weight, BIA and DEXA) were missing (n=622), if tissue was omitted from the DEXA scan (n=184), or if their BIA values were biologically implausible (n=70, >4 SD beyond the mean). The excluded participants were younger and had higher BMI values than the included participants (supplementary table 1). After exclusions, this analysis included 11,559 individuals (5,327 men and 6,232 women). We randomly divided the included participants into a ‘Derivation’ sample (4,827 men; 5,732 women) and a ‘Validation’ sample (500 men; 500 women) see table 1.

UK Biobank Imaging Study

The prediction equations were further validated in the UK Biobank Imaging Study. UK Biobank is a population-based cohort study of ∼500,000 individuals aged between 40-69 years at baseline, who were recruited in 2006-2010 from several centres across the United Kingdom. Adults were re-invited to attend the UK Biobank Imaging Study in 2014, including 5,112 participants with whole body iDEXA scans. The sample included here comprised 2,392 men and 2,606 women with biologically plausible measurements of anthropometry, DEXA, and segmental BIA (Table 1).

UK Biobank received approval from the National Information Governance Board for Health and Social Care and the National Health Service North West Centre for Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 11/NW/0382)¹⁵.

Anthropometry

In both studies, anthropometry and body composition measurements were performed by trained research staff, following standard protocols^16-18. Body weight and height were measured with the participants barefoot and in light indoor clothes. BMI was calculated as weight (kg) divided by height squared (m²).

In the Fenland study¹⁶, waist circumference was measured at the midpoint between the lower costal margins and the level of the anterior superior iliac crests, and hip circumference was measured at the widest level of the greater trochanters. Waist and hip circumferences were measured using a non-stretchable fibre-glass tape. In UK Biobank, waist circumference was measured at the level of the smallest part of the trunk or the umbilicus, and hip circumference was measured at the level of the widest part of the hips. Waist and hip circumferences were measured using a SECA 200 tape measure¹⁴.

Segmental BIA

In both studies, BIA was performed using the Tanita BC-418MA Segmental Body Composition Analyser (Tanita Corporation) adhering to the manufacturer’s guidelines. This device is a single-frequency (50kHz) BIA monitor that uses eight polar electrodes and a single-point load cell weighing system in the scale platform. It provides separate body mass and impedance readings for different body segments, such as right arm, left arm, right leg, and left leg. For the current analysis, we summed left and right limb values and calculated impedance indices (height² in m² / impedance in ohms) for the whole body, arms and legs.

DEXA

In the Fenland study, most whole body DEXA scans were performed using Lunar Prodigy Advanced (GE Healthcare), and a minority (2.2%) used iDEXA (GE Healthcare). In the UK Biobank Imaging Study, all whole body DEXA scans were performed using iDEXA. Participants were scanned by trained operators using standard imaging and positioning protocols. Before scanning, DEXA systems were calibrated according to the manufacturer’s guidelines using a spine phantom made of calcium hydroxyapatite, embedded in a lucite block (GE-Lunar, Madison, WI)^16,18.

In both studies, and for data from both DEXA scanners in the Fenland study, enCORE software version 14-16 (GE Healthcare) was used under the enhanced analysis protocol to acquire total and regional FM and LM. The enCORE software automatically demarcated the boundaries of body regions which were checked and adjusted where needed by trained operators¹⁵.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 16.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Descriptive data are reported as means ± SD, P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

The performance of these different models was compared by calculating the explained variance in each outcome parameter (model Pearson correlation coefficients) and root mean square deviation (RMSD) values, which represent the average deviance between the observed (measured) and predicted values. Derivation of prediction models: in the Fenland Derivation sample, sex-stratified forward stepwise (p<0.05) regression models were performed separately for the following dependent variables: total body and regional FM and LM DEXA parameters. We note that the chosen DEXA parameters are based on a 3-compartment model, in which FM and LM are distinct from bone mass. Collinearity between co-variates was indicated by model mean variance inflation factor >10; by this criterion, waist-hip ratio, total body impedance index, and individual segmental impedance values were removed. For each outcome, four different models were compared:

Basic model: (age, height and weight)

Model A: (age, height, weight, waist and hip circumferences)

Model B: (age, height, weight, total body impedance, arm and leg impedance indices)

Model C: (age, height, weight, waist and hip circumferences, total body impedance, arm and leg impedance indices)

The performance of these different models was compared by calculating the explained variance in each outcome parameter (model r-square values) and root mean square deviation (RMSD) values, which represent the average deviance between the observed and regression model predicted values.

Model validation

In the Fenland Validation sample and the UK Biobank Imaging Study, total body and regional FM and LM values were predicted in each individual using the final model equations. The level of agreement to the observed measure was assessed using: Pearson’s correlations. With Student’s t-test and linear regression analysis used to identify any significant differences in the point estimate. Bland-Altman plots were also used to assess the agreement, and the root mean square error (RMSE) was calculated. Bias was calculated as the difference between equation predicted and DEXA measured values, and the limits of agreement as the 95% confidence range (mean bias +1.96 standard deviations).

Derivation of prediction models

Comparing the results of multiple linear regression models, the most comprehensive model, i.e. Model C (including age, height, weight, waist and hip circumferences, total body impedance, arm and leg impedance indices), consistently produced higher r-square values and lower RMSD values, compared to the other models (Supplementary Table 2). Thus this was the basis of the final prediction models. In these the weights were built based on the beta coefficients from Model C, as were the constant values, shown in Supplementary Table 3. For example:

Validation of prediction models in the Fenland Study

In the Fenland Validation sample, DEXA total body and regional FM and LM parameters were predicted from anthropometry and BIA variables using the equations derived above from Model C (Supplementary Table 2). Correlation coefficients between predicted and measured DEXA parameters were strong (R² >0.8) for all FM and LM variables; the minimum was for subcutaneous abdominal FM in men. (Table 3). Bland Altman analyses revealed no significant mean bias for any predicted DEXA parameter (all P>0.05). Bias expressed as % of the mean was between -0.6% and 0.5% for all parameters in both men and women, except for visceral FM and subcutaneous abdominal FM (range -3.6 to 1.1%).

Validation of prediction models in the UK Biobank Imaging Study

In the UK Biobank Imaging Study, DEXA total body and regional FM and LM parameters were predicted from anthropometry and BIA variables using the equations derived above from Model C (Supplementary Table 2). Correlation coefficients between predicted and measured DEXA parameters were strong for all FM and LM variables; again, the minimum was for subcutaneous abdominal FM in men (r=0.72).

However, Bland Altman analyses revealed significant (P<0.05) mean bias for all predicted DEXA parameters with the exception of total FM and gynoid FM in men. Bias expressed as % of the mean for each parameter was between -0.2% and 1.6% for total FM and total LM in both sexes. For most other parameters, % mean bias was between -7.5% and 5.5% and was >9.5% for leg and visceral FM in both sexes.