Predicting in Vivo Soft Tissue Masses of the Lower Extremity Using Segment Anthropometric Measures and DXA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to derive and validate regression equations for the prediction of fat mass (FM), lean mass (LM), wobbling mass (WM), and bone mineral content (BMC) of the thigh, leg, and leg + foot segments of living people from easily measured segmental anthropometric measures. The segment masses of 68 university-age participants (26 M, 42 F) were obtained from full-body dual photon x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans, and were used as the criterion values against which predicted masses were compared. Comprehensive anthropometric measures (6 lengths, 6 circumferences, 8 breadths, 4 skinfolds) were taken bilaterally for the thigh and leg for each person. Stepwise multiple linear regression was used to derive a prediction equation for each mass type and segment. Prediction equations exhibited high adjusted R2 values in general (0.673 to 0.925), with higher correlations evident for the LM and WM equations than for FM and BMC. Predicted (equations) and measured (DXA) segment LM and WM were also found to be highly correlated (R2 = 0.85 to 0.96), and FM and BMC to a lesser extent (R2 = 0.49 to 0.78). Relative errors between predicted and measured masses ranged between 0.7% and -11.3% for all those in the validation sample (n = 16). These results on university-age men and women are encouraging and suggest that in vivo estimates of the soft tissue masses of the lower extremity can be made fairly accurately from simple segmental anthropometric measures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".