4.7 Article

Canine Body Composition Quantification Using 3 Tesla Fat-Water MRI

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 485-491

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24156

关键词

fat-water; whole-body; canine; adipose; lean; bone

资金

  1. NIH [R01-DK18243]
  2. Vanderbilt Diabetes Research and Training Center [DK-020593]
  3. NCATS/NIH [1 UL1 RR024975]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo test the hypothesis that a whole-body fat-water MRI (FWMRI) protocol acquired at 3 Tesla combined with semi-automated image analysis techniques enables precise volume and mass quantification of adipose, lean, and bone tissue depots that agree with static scale mass and scale mass changes in the context of a longitudinal study of large-breed dogs placed on an obesogenic high-fat, high-fructose diet. Materials and MethodsSix healthy adult male dogs were scanned twice, at weeks 0 (baseline) and 4, of the dietary regiment. FWMRI-derived volumes of adipose tissue (total, visceral, and subcutaneous), lean tissue, and cortical bone were quantified using a semi-automated approach. Volumes were converted to masses using published tissue densities. ResultsFWMRI-derived total mass corresponds with scale mass with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.931 (95% confidence interval=[0.813, 0.975]), and slope and intercept values of 1.12 and -2.23 kg, respectively. Visceral, subcutaneous and total adipose tissue masses increased significantly from weeks 0 to 4, while neither cortical bone nor lean tissue masses changed significantly. This is evidenced by a mean percent change of 70.2% for visceral, 67.0% for subcutaneous, and 67.1% for total adipose tissue. ConclusionFWMRI can precisely quantify and map body composition with respect to adipose, lean, and bone tissue depots. The described approach provides a valuable tool to examine the role of distinct tissue depots in an established animal model of human metabolic disease. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;39:485-491. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据