Official position of the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (ABRASSO) on the evaluation of body composition by densitometry: part I (technical aspects)—general concepts, indications, acquisition, and analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the technical aspects of body composition assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and other methods based on the most recent scientific evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Official Position is a result of efforts by the Scientific Committee of the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (Associação Brasileira de Avaliação Óssea e Osteometabolismo, ABRASSO) and health care professionals with expertise in body composition assessment who were invited to contribute to the preparation of this document. The authors searched current databases for relevant publications. In this first part of the Official Position, the authors discuss the different methods and parameters used for body composition assessment, general principles of DXA, and aspects of the acquisition and analysis of DXA scans. CONCLUSION: Considering aspects of accuracy, precision, cost, duration, and ability to evaluate all three compartments, DXA is considered the gold-standard method for body composition assessment, particularly for the evaluation of fat mass. In order to ensure reliable, adequate, and reproducible DXA reports, great attention is required regarding quality control procedures, preparation, removal of external artifacts, imaging acquisition, and data analysis and interpretation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".