Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Phenotyping in clinical nutrition

Digital anthropometric evaluation of young children: comparison to results acquired with conventional anthropometry

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 76, pages 251–260 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

Three-dimensional optical (3DO) imaging devices for acquiring anthropometric measurements are proliferating in healthcare facilities, although applicability in young children has not been evaluated; small body size and movement may limit device accuracy. The current study aim was to critically test three commercial 3DO devices in young children.

Methods

The number of successful scans and circumference measurements at six anatomic sites were quantified with the 3DO devices in 64 children, ages 5–8 years. Of the scans available for processing, 3DO and flexible tape-measure measurements made by a trained anthropometrist were compared.

Results

Sixty of 181 scans (33.1%) could not be processed for technical reasons. Of processed scans, mean 3DO-tape circumference differences tended to be small (~1–9%) and varied across systems; correlations and bias estimates also varied in strength across anatomic sites and systems (e.g., regression R2s, 0.54–0.97, all p < 0.01). Overall findings differed across devices; best results were for a multi-camera stationary system and less so for two rotating single- or dual-camera systems.

Conclusions

Available 3DO devices for quantifying anthropometric dimensions in adults vary in applicability in young children according to instrument design. These findings suggest the need for 3DO devices designed specifically for small and/or young children.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Scan image errors present on a representative avatar produced by the Size Stream SS20 scanner.
Fig. 2: Circumferences estimated by the Fit3D Proscanner versus circumference tape measurements and associated Bland–Altman plots.
Fig. 3: Circumferences estimated by the Size Stream SS20 versus circumference tape measurements and associated Bland–Altman plots.
Fig. 4: Circumferences estimated by the Styku S100 versus circumference tape measurements and associated Bland–Altman plots.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Janssen I, Leblanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Loeffler-Wirth H, Vogel M, Kirsten T, Glock F, Poulain T, Korner A, et al. Longitudinal anthropometry of children and adolescents using 3D-body scanning. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0203628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Skinner AC, Ravanbakht SN, Skelton JA, Perrin EM, Armstrong SC. Prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in US children, 1999-2016. Pediatrics. 2018;141:e20173459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lifshitz F. Obesity in children. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol. 2008;1:53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cameron N. The measurement of human growth. London: Croom Helm; 1984.

  6. Madden AM, Smith S. Body composition and morphological assessment of nutritional status in adults: a review of anthropometric variables. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016;29:7–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ulijaszek SJ, Mascie-Taylor CGN. Anthropometry: the individual and the population, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.

  8. Frisancho AR. Anthropometric standards for the assessment of growth and nutritional status. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1990.

  9. Roche AF, Mukherjee D, Guo SM, Moore WM. Head circumference reference data: birth to 18 years. Pediatrics. 1987;75:706–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Din N, Fan B, Kazemi L, Ng B. Validation of body composition measures from forearm and lateral distal femur scans of children [abstract]. J Clin Densitom. 2018;21:32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalkwarf HJ, Zemel BS, Gilsanz V, Lappe JM, Horlick M, Oberfield S, et al. The bone mineral density in childhood study: bone mineral content and density according to age, sex, and race. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:2087–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kelly TL, Wilson KE, Heymsfield SB. Dual energy X-Ray absorptiometry body composition reference values from NHANES. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e7038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shepherd JA, Wang L, Fan B, Gilsanz V, Kalkwarf HJ, Lappe J, et al. Optimal monitoring time interval between DXA measures in children. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:2745–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kennedy S, Hwaung P, Kelly N, Liu YE, Sobhiyeh S, Heo M, et al. Optical imaging technology for body size and shape analysis: evaluation of a system designed for personal use. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74:920–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tinsley GM, Moore ML, Benavides ML, Dellinger JR, Adamson BT. 3-Dimensional optical scanning for body composition assessment: a 4-component model comparison of four commercially available scanners. Clin Nutr. 2020;39:3160–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong MC, Ng BK, Kennedy SF, Hwaung P, Liu EY, Kelly NN, et al. Children and adolescents’ anthropometrics body composition from 3-D optical surface scans. Obesity. 2019;27:1738–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bourgeois B, Ng BK, Latimer D, Stannard CR, Romeo L, Li X, et al. Clinically applicable optical imaging technology for body size and shape analysis: comparison of systems differing in design. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2017;71:1329–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ng BK, Hinton BJ, Fan B, Kanaya AM, Shepherd JA. Clinical anthropometrics and body composition from 3D whole-body surface scans. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:1265–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): anthropometry procedures manual. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2007.

  20. Heymsfield SB, Bourgeois B, Ng BK, Sommer MJ, Li X, Shepherd JA. Digital anthropometry: a critical review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72:680–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by National Institutes of Health NORC Center Grants P30DK072476, Pennington/Louisiana, P30DK040561, Harvard, and R01DK109008, Shape UP! Adults; the Louisiana State University Biomedical Collaborative Research Program; and the National Science Foundation I-Corps program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, LSU System, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

    Samantha Kennedy, Brooke Smith, Sima Sobhiyeh & Steven B. Heymsfield

  2. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

    Marcelline E. Dechenaud

  3. University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Michael Wong, Nisa Kelly & John Shepherd

Authors
  1. Samantha Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brooke Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sima Sobhiyeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcelline E. Dechenaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nisa Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Steven B. Heymsfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors’ contributions to manuscript: SK, MW, JS, and SBH designed research; SK, BS, SS, MED, NK, and MW conducted research; JS and SBH provided essential materials; SK, BS, MW, JS, and SBH analyzed data; SK, BS, SS, MED, MW, JS, NK, and SBH wrote the paper; SK, BS, SS, MED, MW, JS, NK, and SBH had primary responsibility for final content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven B. Heymsfield.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kennedy, S., Smith, B., Sobhiyeh, S. et al. Digital anthropometric evaluation of young children: comparison to results acquired with conventional anthropometry. Eur J Clin Nutr 76, 251–260 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-00938-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-00938-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links