RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Smartphone Camera Based Assessment of Adiposity: A Multi-Site Validation Study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.10.21258595
DO 10.1101/2021.06.10.21258595
A1 Majmudar, Maulik D.
A1 Chandra, Siddhartha
A1 Kennedy, Samantha
A1 Agrawal, Amit
A1 Sippel, Mark
A1 Ramu, Prakash
A1 Chaudhri, Apoorv
A1 Criminisi, Antonio
A1 Smith, Brooke
A1 Heymsfield, Steven B.
A1 Stanford, Fatima Cody
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/16/2021.06.10.21258595.abstract
AB Background Body composition is a key component of health in both individuals and populations, and excess adiposity is associated with an increased risk of developing chronic diseases. Body mass index (BMI) and other clinical or consumer-facing tools for quantifying body fat (BF) are often inaccurate, cost-prohibitive, or cumbersome to use. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the performance of a novel automated computer vision method, visual body composition (VBC), that uses two-dimensional photographs captured via a conventional smartphone camera to estimate percentage total body fat (%BF).Methods 134 healthy adults ranging in age (21-76 years), sex (61.2% women), race (60.4% Caucasian; 23.9% Black), and body mass index (BMI, 18.5-51.6 kg/m2) were evaluated at two clinical sites. Each participant had %BF measured with VBC, three consumer and two professional bioimpedance analysis (BIA) systems, as well as air displacement plethysmography (ADP). %BF measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was set as the reference against which all other estimates were compared.Results Relative to DXA, VBC had the lowest mean absolute error and standard deviation (2.34%±1.83%) compared to all other evaluated methods (p<0.05 for all comparisons). %BF measured by VBC also had very good concordance with DXA (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient, CCC: overall 0.94; women 0.92; men 0.90); whereas BMI had very poor concordance (CCC: overall 0.45; women 0.40; men 0.74). Bland-Altman analysis of VBC revealed the tightest limits of agreement (LOA) and absence of significant bias relative to DXA (bias 0.85%, R2=0.01; p=0.41; LOA −4.7% to +6.4%), whereas all other evaluated methods had significant (p<0.01) bias and wider limits of agreement.Conclusion In this first validation study of a novel, accessible, and easy-to-use system, VBC body fat estimates were accurate and without significant bias compared to DXA as the reference; VBC performance exceeded those of all other BIA and ADP methods evaluated. The wide availability of smartphones suggests that the VBC method for evaluating %BF can play a major role in quantifying adiposity levels in a wide range of settings.TRIAL REGISTRATION Funded by Amazon, Inc., Seattle, WA.Competing Interest StatementChandra, Agrawal, Sippel, Ramu, Chaudhri, and Criminisi are currently employees of Amazon Inc. Majmudar was employed by Amazon Inc. during this study. Pennington Biomedical Research Center (Kennedy, Smith, Heymsfield) and Massachusetts General Hospital (Stanford) received funding from Amazon Inc for the study. Outside the study, Heymsfield reports personal fees from Tanita Corp. and Medifast Corp.Funding StatementThe study was funded by Amazon, Inc., Seattle, WA.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol was approved by the Advarra Institutional Review Board (Columbia, MD) as well as the Institutional Review Boards of Massachusetts General Hospital and Pennington Biomedical Research Center.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData is not available for public use.