Machine learning-based equations for improved body composition estimation in Indian adults

Background

Measurements of body composition, such as body fat percentage, can provide meaningful health-related insights. Total body fat and intra-abdominal fat have been previously associated with metabolic syndrome¹, while lean body mass can be protective against chronic diseases and age-related adverse conditions^2,3. Further, there is some evidence that these relationships are particularly pronounced in adults of South Asian ethnicities^1,2, underscoring the importance of accurately recording these body composition metrics in epidemiological studies. While many studies of individuals of South Asian ethnicities use metrics such as overall weight and body mass index (BMI), these metrics may fail to distinguish between fat mass and lean mass, and therefore provide an incomplete assessment of body composition^4,5. Thus, there is clinical and public health relevance in more accurately, and separately, characterizing both fat and lean components of body weight in South Asian populations. It should be noted that the label of ‘South Asian’ is used throughout this manuscript to refer to people who identify as having ancestral origin from countries in the South Asian region (defined by the World Bank as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives) and may share tradition, diet, and values. By using this terminology, we do not mean to imply that any such differences are genetic in origin, or that South Asians, or Indians, represent a single ethnic or cultural group.

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is commonly used as a feasible, lower-cost measurement of body composition in population-based studies as compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)⁶. Commercially and clinically available BIA devices, such as TANITA body composition analyzers, utilize inbuilt equations to estimate total and segmental lean and fat mass from a combination of body segment impedance values, sex, height, and weight⁷. However, these prediction equations were generally developed and validated in predominately European ethnic populations and may not generalize to other ethnic groups^8,9. A study of 200 healthy Asian Indian individuals found that in-built equations based on white ethnic populations from a TANITA analyzer underestimated total body fat percentage by 8.3%, or by 5.4% when using equations fit based on individuals of Japanese ethnicity, compared with DXA-derived values¹⁰. A study of 39 Indian adults found that BIA methods underestimated fat mass as compared to four-compartment model, suggesting population-specific equations are needed¹¹. Another study of healthy Indian adult men found that existing BIA equations tended to underestimate body fat compared with deuterium oxide dilution as a reference method¹², while studies among Indian children have reported both under– and over-estimation of body fat percentage as compared to DXA-derived values^13–15. Validation studies have previously demonstrated that impedance analysis led to underestimation of total body water, a component of lean mass, in Indian adults¹⁶.

The relative inaccuracy of BIA-based body composition estimation in Asian Indians compared with white populations may be related to the observed differences in body composition between White and Asian Indian adults¹⁷. In particular, Indian men and women have been found to have higher body fat percentage than their European ethnic counterparts of the same BMI^18–20. The findings of Rush et al suggest that this difference may be related to the presence of higher abdominal fat mass and lower appendicular muscle mass among Asian Indian adults as compared to European, Maori, and Pacific Island ethnic adults after adjustment for age, height, and weight¹⁸. Further, a study of multiple community-based cohorts in the United States found that adults of South Asian ethnicity tended to have less lean mass overall than adults of other ethnic backgrounds²¹. Consequently, there is a relatively high prevalence of “normal weight obesity” in India^22,23. The precise mechanisms responsible for these differences remain subject to debate, though may relate to exposure to common environmental factors²⁴. Nonetheless, because of these differences in the presentation of adiposity, there is a need for better methods to estimate body composition in Asian Indian populations¹⁷. We are aware of one study that developed a novel BIA-based equation to predict DXA-derived body fat among young adult Indian males²⁵, and another that developed lean body mass equations in people of Indian Asian ethnicity living in New Zealand¹⁷, but both had relatively small samples. Furthermore, no Indian-specific equations are available for estimation of central body fat, which may be particularly relevant for understanding cardiometabolic risks in Indian adults.

While BIA-based methods are increasingly popular for measuring body composition in research and clinical contexts, other prediction equations for body composition based on simple physical measurements have been previously developed. For example, the Durnin-Womersley equations are frequently used in epidemiological studies for estimating body fat percentage from skinfold measurements²⁶. However, studies also suggest these equations perform less well in Asian (and other non-white) ethnic groups compared with white populations²⁷ and indicate the potential of such anthropometric measures to further improve body composition estimation equations through recalibration to specific populations²⁸.

The aim of the current work is to develop novel algorithms to predict DXA-derived fat and lean mass metrics calibrated for an adult Indian population. We use the BIA-based default predictions from the TANITA BC-418 (a widely used segmental body composition analyser) as a performance baseline, and then incorporate additional predictors from the TANITA output alongside potentially relevant anthropometric measures related to body stature, adiposity, and muscularity (namely age, standing height, circumferences, skinfolds, and grip strength). We evaluate the performance of the model against DXA-derived body composition metrics in a held-out sample. We explore various combinations of predictors and prediction methods, including penalized regression and non-parametric machine learning algorithms. The best-performing prediction equations for various combinations of predictor variables will be made available online for clinical and research use.

Methods

Results

The details of selecting the study participants are described in a flowchart as Figure 1. The application of inclusion criteria resulted in a sample size of 1615 males and 1422 females (training dataset of 1297 males and 1133 females and validation dataset of 318 males and 289 females). Individuals who did not participate in the DXA study within APCAPS 3^rd follow-up tended to be younger on average than individuals who had DXA measurements available (34 years old and 38 years old, respectively), though BMI was similar in the two groups (data not shown). The characteristics of our final study cohort are described in Table 1. Males and females were of similar age (37 years and 38 years old on average, respectively, in both training and test datasets) and with similar BMI (approximately 20-21 kg/m² in all groups). Within the same sex, the average value of each mass outcome (total body fat mass, total body lean mass, appendicular lean mass) did not differ by more than 0.51 kg between training and test datasets and each percentage outcome (total body fat percentage, trunk fat percentage, L1-L4 fat percentage) did not differ by more than 0.75 percentage points between training and test datasets.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Flow-chart for inclusion in the present analysis

In general, LASSO models achieved the best performance in the testing data for the 6 outcomes based on each observed performance metric. The performance as measured by MAE of LASSO, random forest, and XGBoost algorithms with the full set of predictors can be found in Table 2. In summary, the LASSO achieved the lowest MAE in the test data for the majority of outcome-sex pairs. The exceptions to this were for prediction of trunk fat percentage in males (MAE of 2.094% by LASSO vs MAE of 2.090% by XGBoost), L1-L4 fat percentage in males (MAE of 2.401% by LASSO vs MAE of 2.369% by random forest), total body fat percentage in females (MAE of 2.165% by LASSO vs MAE of 2.104% by random forest), and trunk fat percentage in females (MAE of 2.721% by LASSO vs MAE of 2.622% by random forest).

Despite occasional performance gains by the random forest and XGBoost algorithms, we ultimately favor the LASSO algorithm for its comparative interpretability and ease of application to future data. The performance of the LASSO models created for each outcome-sex pair as described by additional performance metrics MAPE and RMSE is also provided in Table 2.

Our novel equations, as well as the other equations previously developed by Kulkarni et al in an Indian population, performed substantially better than the built-in TANITA estimates and Durnin-Womersley equations. For 5 out of the 12 outcome-sex pairs, the mean absolute error of our best equation was less than half that of the TANITA built-in estimate or Durnin-Womersley equation. For example, mean absolute error for total body fat mass was 1.808 kg for males and 2.054 kg for females using TANITA estimation, 2.105 kg for males and 2.995 kg for females using Durnin-Womersley equations, 1.240 kg for males and 1.061 kg for females using our novel equation with just TANITA values, and 0.935 kg for males and 0.976 kg for females using our novel equation with TANITA, skinfolds, circumferences, and grip strength. The mean absolute error for a subset of the LASSO equations (TANITA predictors only, TANITA and skinfold as predictors, and full set of predictors), TANITA built-in estimates, and existing equations as compared to the DXA values are presented in Table 3. In all instances, the best performance in the test data was achieved by our novel equations (built using LASSO algorithm) with all measurements, that is TANITA, circumferences, skinfolds, and grip strength, included. However, similar performance was sometimes achieved through inclusion of only TANITA and skinfolds. The performance metrics for further combinations of measurements are made available in the Supplementary Material (File 3).

Briefly, the combination of TANITA and circumferences occasionally led to improved performance from TANITA predictors only, though these performance gains were generally not as large as those achieved by the combination of TANITA and skinfolds. The combination of TANITA and grip strength provided only marginal improvements upon the use of TANITA predictors alone. Bland-Altman plots are provided in Figure 2 to compare predictive performance of our full LASSO equations to that of the TANITA default outputs. Overall, there do not appear to be clear systematic errors in the predictions resulting from our equations, though total fat percentage in women and trunk fat percentage in both men and women may be frequently overestimated by our models among individuals with lower trunk fat percentage. Further, our equations may underestimate appendicular lean mass among women with higher appendicular lean mass. The TANITA device appears to frequently underpredict the fat mass of women with lower body fat mass.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Bland-Altman Plots comparing the LASSO with all variables and TANITA Equivalent Measure alone to DXA values

The full set of coefficients for LASSO-derived prediction equations are made available online. The coefficients for each outcome-sex pair in the LASSO model with all sets of predictors are provided in the Supplementary Material (File 2). Each row of this table contains an input measure, and each column describes the sex, outcome measure, and intended set of inputs. For example, the column “total fat percentage male Tanita only” provides the set of coefficients for predicting total body fat percentage among males using only the set of TANITA inputs. The predicted value is generated by multiplying each input by its corresponding coefficient from the model of interest and summing together the results (along with the intercept term), as in a standard linear regression model. The coefficient value appears as NA in the table for any predictors that are not used in the corresponding model (e.g. skinfolds in the “Tanita only” model). Estimations can be easily derived from this table using vector multiplication in statistical software. The MAE values for LASSO models with additional sets of predictors are provided in the Supplementary Material (File 3). Performance metrics for additional body composition metrics (e.g. appendicular fat mass) which were not the focus of this manuscript are provided in Supplementary Material (File 4). The 1^st and 99^th percentiles of each predictor in the training data are provided in Supplementary Material (File 5). Further, all LASSO equations can be used through an interactive application designed by the authors and hosted on GitHub (see data sharing statement).

Discussion

We have developed and validated the performance of a novel set of equations to predict six different clinically important DXA-derived body composition metrics through low-cost bioelectric impedance analyses calibrated for use with men and women living in and near Hyderabad, India, demonstrating improvement from existing equations developed in other ethnic groups. Accurate measurement of these metrics is important as both fat and lean mass are strong determinants of chronic disease and used clinically in diagnosis, risk stratification, and monitoring of interventions^1–3. Further, accurate classification of trunk and abdominal fat adiposity may help to illuminate their relationships with cardiometabolic disease among Indian adults, for which direct evidence remains limited¹. These equations will be particularly useful for large-scale epidemiological studies, especially in settings where expensive DXA scans cannot easily be performed.

Where work by Nigam et al found the mean difference of BIA– and DXA-predicted body fat percentage was 5.4%¹⁰, our novel model resulted in a mean absolute difference of 1.7% for men and 2.2% for women in testing data. While best performance was achieved by making use of a combination of TANITA, skinfolds, grip strength, and circumferences, our novel equations using only TANITA values as predictors still performed better in the held-out testing data than the TANITA built-in estimates and existing prediction equations for all outcomes. Furthermore, we show that even adding a single measurement to the TANITA values (namely skinfolds, and to a lesser extent circumferences) can improve body composition predictions markedly. This could be useful in resource-constrained contexts where collecting all measurements is not feasible. In addition, we have developed predictive equations for trunk and L1-L4 fat percentage in a cohort of Indian adults, which to our knowledge did not previously exist. The generally improved performance of LASSO as compared to random forest and XGBoost models allows us to provide interpretable prediction equations for wider use. The low-cost nature of the measurements used may be especially beneficial for settings where more expensive and time-consuming methods like DXA and MRI are not feasible (i.e., primary care and community settings).

While we identified several studies validating existing body composition metrics for use in Indian populations, our study represents one of only a few studies developing novel equations to predict DXA-derived values for use with Indian adults. While Dasgupta et al provided similar equations with lower reported RMSE than our study, their study sample consisted only of 117 males aged 18 to 22 years old²⁵. As such, the generalizability of these equations may be more limited than the novel equations presented in the current work, developed using a training sample of more than 1000 men and women of a wide age range, the largest population-based DXA dataset including both men and women available in India to our knowledge. The work of Grover et al developed equations to predict DXA-derived fat mass and fat-free mass using BIA, circumferences, and skinfolds separately in a clinical population of 302 adults with cirrhosis but did not present equations using a combination of all factors³³. The equations by Kulkarni et al utilized skinfolds and waist circumference but did not explore the addition of BIA values into predictive equations²⁸. However, the equations by Kulkarni et al resulted in MAE for appendicular lean mass within 0.1 kg of our equations using TANITA only. This is somewhat expected as these equations were calibrated using DXA as reference values and including data from some of the younger individuals in the APCAPS study. Prior development of equations for fat-free mass based on a sample of Black and White individuals by Sun et al reported RMSE of 3.9 kg for males and 2.9 kg for females⁸.

Further, the equations developed by Rush et al for prediction of fat-free mass in an Asian Indian population report an RMSE of 2.13 in the study sample¹⁷. The RMSE for our LASSO-based equations predicting total lean mass were 1.5 kg for males and 1.6 kg for females, suggesting improved model fit. To our knowledge, the current work represents the introduction of the first set of validated BIA-based equations to predict trunk-specific body composition outcomes for Indian adult men and women.

Though we have demonstrated improved performance from the TANITA output in estimating lean mass in both the full body and appendicular regions, it is unsurprising that the TANITA outputs have a noticeable systematic error. This is because the TANITA uses a two-compartment model to predict fat-free mass, combining both lean mass and skeletal mass into a single measure, whereas the DXA-derived outcome specifically uses a three-compartment model to measure lean mass as distinct from skeletal mass. Additionally, the TANITA provides no direct measure of L1-L4 fat mass as the device cannot detect this body segment. Finally, the TANITA trunk segment includes the mass of the head, while the DXA includes the head as a separate body segment. These observed systematic errors may explain the performance issues of the TANITA observed in our study, though they also emphasize the relevance of the current work. Those interested in measuring lean mass without skeletal mass using TANITA now have a method of doing so despite its use of a two-compartment model.

However, the present work is not without limitations. Of note, not all participants from APCAPS attended the clinic for DXA measurements due to funding limitations or travel distance to the clinic. The participants who did not attend DXA clinics tended to be younger than the participants who did attend the clinics, suggesting there could be systematic differences between those included and those not included due to missing measurements, though no significant difference was found in BMI between the individuals with and without DXA measurements. Regardless, these equations are not recommended for estimating body composition among pregnant women since these women were not included in the sample used for the present development and validation of equations. The validity of these equations in the presence of values outside the range of the training data is also unclear. The training dataset mostly consisted of low-BMI individuals (99^th percentile for BMI in both men and women ≈ 31 kg/m²). Further, the 99^th percentile for age in our data is 67 years in men and 61 years in women. Therefore, predictions may not be suitable for adults with obesity as defined by BMI and those older than the study sample and we recommend interpreting model predictions with caution in such cases. We provide the minimum, 1^st percentile, 99^th percentile, and maximum of each predictor in the training data in the Supplementary Material (File 5).

Beyond the limitations related to the distribution of variables and selection into the DXA study, limitations to interpretation of results also arise from the use of an internal, rather than external, validation dataset. Our participants are largely from peri-urban areas in southeastern India, and it is unclear how well these equations will perform in other populations in India and in the diaspora, as India is an ethnically diverse country. Additionally, most participants in the APCAPS cohort were between 18-30 or 40-55 years old, meaning that individuals 30-40 years old were underrepresented in the dataset. Because of these limitations, future work is needed to validate these equations in other Indian cohorts and among adults of Indian ethnicity living outside of India. Further, while prior research has shown that DXA is a good substitute for MRI-derived measures of abdominal fat in Indian populations, researchers may still prefer equations developed using MRI for measurement of abdominal fat as the gold standard since DXA may tend to overestimate fat mass in leaner individuals³⁰. Additional research may also investigate the performance of these equations against MRI-derived measures of each outcome.

Finally, future validation work is crucial to assess the validity of these equations when deriving BIA estimates from other devices. The present study made use of the TANITA BC-418 device, which although widespread, has since been discontinued by the manufacturer and replaced with the MC-780U. This newer model has been described by the manufacturer as a direct replacement and provides the same 50KHz measurement frequency, suggesting our equations could be used across both devices. Further, the additional measures provided by the new model, such as measurement of impedance using additional frequency values, may present opportunities for development of equations using an expanded set of inputs in the future. Additionally, validation work is needed to assess the performance of these equations when using BIA-based inputs from manufacturers other than TANITA in case of systematic differences between devices. It is the authors’ expectation that the equations will perform well with inputs from any BIA device that can provide segmental estimates, as the underlying approach to impedance estimation is similar, and studies have reported high correspondence in body composition estimates across manufacturers, though one study suggested estimates from Omron devices may differ from other manufacturers³⁴. Additionally, it is of note that one study in Finnish adults has demonstrated differences between estimates of fat mass percentage between TANITA and InBody BIA devices, suggesting caution may be needed when using our equations with InBody devices³⁵. Our equations are not suitable for use with BIA devices which provide only full-body measurements, as information about the separate body segments are required as input.

Conclusions

In summary, we have developed and validated several novel prediction equations for a variety of body composition metrics specifically for an Indian population using a large sample size. We encourage the use of our equations based on the LASSO algorithm and make these equations available for use. These equations are expected to deliver improved prediction of various body composition outcomes on average when used with non-pregnant Indian adults. Differences in body composition between different ethnicities due to a combination of factors, including differences between different Asian ethnicities, underscore the importance of developing such equations specifically for adults of Indian ethnicity³⁶.

Declarations

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The APCAPS cohort data analysed in this manuscript are available to bona fide researchers upon request through completion of a collaborator form (https://apcaps.lshtm.ac.uk/apply-to-collaborate/). The equations developed in this manuscript are available through an open-source web application on GitHub (https://github.com/nwbirk).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Funding

The Andhra Pradesh Children and Parents’ Study third follow-up was funded by the Wellcome Trust [strategic award 084774]. Authors NB, PACM and SK receive part of their salary from the Medical Research Council (MRC) UK [grant reference MR/V001221/1]. Neither the Wellcome Trust nor the MRC had any role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.

Authors’ Contributions

NB, PACM and SK conceived the study. NB conducted the study (including analysis of data), wrote the first draft of the manuscript and is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. PACM and SK contributed to study planning. SB, AA, GKW, VG and UR were involved in primary data collection and management. All authors (NB, BK, SB, AA, GKW, VG, UR, HM, SK, PACM) contributed to the writing of subsequent drafts of the manuscript, the interpretation of results, and have given approval for the final version to be published.

Financial support

The Andhra Pradesh Children and Parents’ Study third follow-up was funded by the Wellcome Trust [strategic award 084774]. Authors NB, PACM and SK receive part of their salary from the Medical Research Council (MRC) UK [grant reference MR/V001221/1]. Neither the Wellcome Trust nor the MRC had any role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary File 1 – List of data quality rules applied for inclusion in the study (Microsoft Word Document)

Supplementary File 2 – Coefficients for each outcome in full model (Microsoft Excel Worksheet)

Supplementary File 3 – Performance (Mean Absolute Error) of the LASSO with alternate sets of predictors (Microsoft Excel Worksheet)

Supplementary File 4 – Information about model performance for other outcomes (trunk fat mass (kg), trunk lean mass (kg), L1-L4 fat mass (kg), L1-L4 lean mass (kg), appendicular fat mass (kg), and appendicular fat mass percentage (%)) (Microsoft Excel Worksheet)

Supplementary File 5 – Minimum, 1st percentile, 99th percentile, and maximum of each predictor in the training data (Microsoft Excel Worksheet)