Abstract
In this study we assessed the accuracy of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluating body composition. Using data from 32,961 participants in the UK Biobank, including 1,928 re-scanned participants after about two and a half years, we examined cross-sectional and longitudinal agreements in DXA and MRI measurements within android and gynoid regions. Our results showed that DXA reliably captured fat measurements but overestimated lean mass compared to MRI, particularly in android regions for men (4.10 vs. 1.74 kg) and women (2.92 vs. 1.10 kg). Longitudinal MRI data revealed a 4-5% muscle and lean mass decrease, undetected by DXA, which showed lean mass increases in women at the follow-up visit. Although DXA is practical for population-level fat assessments, MRI remains the preferred method for detailed and precise longitudinal body composition analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Calico Life Sciences LLC.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Participant data from the UK Biobank cohort was obtained through UK Biobank Access Application number 44584. The UK Biobank has approval from the North West Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 11/NW/0382), with informed consent obtained from all participants. Researchers may apply to use the UKBB data resource by submitting a health-related research proposal in the public interest. Additional information may be found on the UK Biobank researchers and resource catalogue pages (http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk). All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations as presented by the appropriate authorities, including the Declaration of Helsinki.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Our research was conducted using UK Biobank data. Under the standard UK Biobank data sharing agreement, we (and other researchers) cannot directly share raw data obtained or derived from the UK Biobank. However, under this agreement, all of the data generated, and methodologies used in this paper are returned by us to the UK Biobank, where they will be fully available. Access is obtained directly from the UK Biobank to all bona fide researchers upon submitting a health-related research proposal to the UK Biobank https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk.
