A critical evaluation of bioimpedance spectroscopy analysis in estimating body composition during GH treatment: comparison with bromide dilution and dual X-ray absorptiometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare estimates by bioimpedance spectroscopy analysis (BIS) of extracellular water (ECW), fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) against standard techniques of bromide dilution and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) during intervention that causes significant changes in water compartments and body composition. METHODS: Body composition analysis using BIS, bromide dilution, and DXA was performed in 71 healthy recreational athletes (43 men, 28 women; aged 18-40 years; BMI 24 ± 0.4 kg/m(2)) who participated in a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study of GH and testosterone treatment. The comparison of BIS with bromide dilution and DXA was analyzed using linear regression and the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: At baseline, there was a significant correlation between BIS and bromide dilution-derived estimates for ECW, and DXA for FM and FFM (P<0.001). ECW by BIS was 3.5 ± 8.1% lower compared with bromide dilution, while FM was 22.4 ± 26.8% lower and FFM 13.7 ± 7.5% higher compared with DXA (P<0.01). During treatment, the change in ECW was similar between BIS and bromide dilution, whereas BIS gave a significantly greater reduction in FM (19.4 ± 44.8%) and a greater increase in FFM (5.6 ± 3.0%) compared with DXA (P<0.01). Significant differences in body composition estimates between the BIS and DXA were observed only in men, particularly during the treatment that caused greatest change in water compartments and body composition. CONCLUSION: In healthy adults, bioimpedance spectroscopy is an acceptable tool for measuring ECW; however, BIS overestimates FFM and substantially underestimates FM compared with DXA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".