4.0 Article

Practical approach for estimation of subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue

Journal

CLINICAL PHYSIOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL IMAGING
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 148-153

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2007.00728.x

Keywords

anthropometry; elliptical approximation; magnetic resonance imaging; sagittal abdominal diameter; subcutaneous adipose tissue; transverse abdominal diameter; visceral adipose tissue

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The first objective was to investigate the correlations between anthropometrical measurements and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) in two cohorts differing in age using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as reference. A second objective was to investigate the potential usage of abdominal diameters in practical estimation of adipose tissue compartments using these cohorts. Methods: Measurements of body mass index, waist circumference, sagittal abdominal diameter (sagittal AD) and transverse abdominal diameter (transverse AD) were obtained from 336 volunteers of age 14-70 years. Manual measurements of VAT and SAT from single slice MRI at the L4-L5 level were used as reference. The abdominal diameters were measured from the MR images. Linear correlations between the anthropometrical measurements and the reference were studied. Results: Sagittal AD showed the strongest correlation to VAT (r >= 0.780, P < 0.0001) and transverse AD was found to give information about the amount of SAT (r >= 0.866, P < 0.0001). The ellipse spanned by the sagittal AD and the transverse AD was strongly correlated to the total amount of adipose tissue (r >= 0.962, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Strong correlations were found between sagittal and transverse abdominal diameters, assessed using MRI, and VAT and SAT, respectively. These results suggest the use of abdominal diameters in practical estimations of VAT and SAT depots.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available