Bioelectrical Impedance vs. Four‐compartment Model to Assess Body Fat Change in Overweight Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Tanita TBF-305 body fat analyzer is marketed for home and clinical use and is based on the principles of leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Few studies have investigated the ability of leg-to-leg BIA to detect change in percentage fat mass (%FM) over time. Our objective was to determine the ability of leg-to-leg BIA vs. the four-compartment (4C) model to detect small changes in %FM in overweight adults. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Thirty-eight overweight adults (BMI, 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2; age, 18 to 44 years; 31 women) participated in a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a nutritional supplement. Body composition was measured at 0 and 6 months using the Tanita TBF-305 body fat analyzer [using equations derived by the manufacturer (%FM(T-Man)) and by Jebb et al. (%FM(T-Jebb))] and the 4C model (%FM(4C)). RESULTS: Subjects in the experimental group lost 0.9%FM(4C) (p = 0.03), a loss that did not reach significance using leg-to-leg BIA (0.6%FM(T-Man), p = 0.151; 0.6%FM(T-Jebb), p = 0.144). We observed large standard deviations (SDs) in the mean difference in %FM between the 4C model and the Tanita(Manufacturer) (2.5%) and Tanita(Jebb) (2.2%). Ten subjects fell outside +/-1 SD of the mean differences at 0 and 6 months; those individuals were younger and shorter than those within +/-1 SD. DISCUSSION: Leg-to-leg BIA performed reasonably well in predicting decreases in %FM in this group of overweight adults but resulted in wide SDs vs. %FM(4C) in individuals. Cross-sectional determinations of %FM of overweight individuals using leg-to-leg BIA should be interpreted with caution.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".