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:

Mobile phone applications for 3-dimensional scanning and digital anthropometry: a precision comparison with traditional scanners

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

The precision of digital anthropometry through 3-dimensional (3D) scanning has been established for relatively large, expensive, non-portable systems. The comparative performance of modern mobile applications is unclear.

Subjects/methods

Forty-six adults (age: 23.3 ± 5.3 y; BMI: 24.4 ± 4.1 kg/m2) were assessed in duplicate using: (1) a mobile phone application capturing two individual 2D images, (2) a mobile phone application capturing serial images collected during a subject’s complete rotation, (3) a traditional scanner with a time of flight infrared sensor collecting visual data from a subject being rotated on a mechanical turntable, and (4) a commercial measuring booth with structured light technology using 20 infrared depth sensors positioned in the booth. The absolute and relative technical error of measurement (TEM) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each method were established.

Results

Averaged across circumferences, the absolute TEM, relative TEM, and ICC were (1) 0.9 cm, 1.5%, and 0.975; (2) 0.5 cm, 0.9%, and 0.986; (3) 0.8 cm, 1.5%, and 0.974; and (4) 0.6 cm, 1.1%, and 0.985. For total body volume, these values were (1) 2.2 L, 3.0%, and 0.978; (2) 0.8 L, 1.1%, and 0.997; (3) 0.7 L, 0.9%, and 0.998; and (4) 0.8 L, 1.1%, and 0.996, with segmental volumes demonstrating higher relative errors.

Conclusion

A 3D scanning mobile phone application involving full rotation of subjects in front of a smartphone camera exhibited similar reliability to larger, less portable, more expensive 3D scanners. In contrast, larger errors were observed for a mobile scanning application utilizing two 2D images, although the technical errors were acceptable for some applications.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and pending relevant approvals.

References

  1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0145-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mocini E, Cammarota C, Frigerio F, Muzzioli L, Piciocchi C, Lacalaprice D, et al. Digital anthropometry: a systematic review on precision, reliability and accuracy of most popular existing technologies. Nutrients 2023;15:302. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020302

  3. Graybeal AJ, Brandner CF, Tinsley GM. Visual body composition assessment methods: a 4-compartment model comparison of smartphone-based artificial intelligence for body composition estimation in healthy adults. Clin Nutr. 2022;41:2464–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Graybeal AJ, Brandner CF, Tinsley GM. Evaluation of automated anthropometrics produced by smartphone-based machine learning: a comparison with traditional anthropometric assessments. Br J Nutr. 2023;130:1077–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114523000090

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith B, McCarthy C, Dechenaud ME, Wong MC, Shepherd J, Heymsfield SB. Anthropometric evaluation of a 3D scanning mobile application. Obesity. 2022;30:1181–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.23434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tinsley GM, Harty PS, Siedler MR, Stratton MT, Rodriguez C. Improved precision of 3-dimensional optical imaging for anthropometric measurement using non-rigid avatar reconstruction and parameterized body model fitting. Clin Nutr Open Sci. 2023;50:40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutos.2023.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tinsley GM, Moore ML, Dellinger JR, Adamson BT, Benavides ML. Digital anthropometry via three-dimensional optical scanning: evaluation of four commercially available systems. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74:1054–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0526-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17:101–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::aid-sim727>3.0.co;2-e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arifin WN. Sample size calculator. Retrieved from http://wnarifin.github.io, 2023.

  10. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–8. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ng BK, Sommer MJ, Wong MC, Pagano I, Nie Y, Fan B, et al. Detailed 3-dimensional body shape features predict body composition, blood metabolites, and functional strength: the Shape Up! studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;110:1316–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqz218

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sullivan K, Metoyer CJ, Hornikel B, Holmes CJ, Nickerson BS, Esco MR, et al. Agreement between a 2-dimensional digital image-based 3-compartment body composition model and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for the estimation of relative adiposity. J Clin Densitom. 2022;25:244–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2021.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sullivan K, Hornikel B, Holmes CJ, Esco MR, Fedewa MV. Validity of a 3-compartment body composition model using body volume derived from a novel 2-dimensional image analysis program. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022;76:111–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-00899-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fedewa MV, Sullivan K, Hornikel B, Holmes CJ, Metoyer CJ, Esco MR. Accuracy of a mobile 2D imaging system for body volume and subsequent composition estimates in a three-compartment model. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021;53:1003–9. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000002550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sobhiyeh S, Kennedy S, Dunkel A, Dechenaud ME, Weston JA, Shepherd J, et al. Digital anthropometry for body circumference measurements: toward the development of universal three-dimensional optical system analysis software. Obes Sci Pract. 2021;7:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harty PS, Sieglinger B, Heymsfield SB, Shepherd JA, Bruner D, Stratton MT, et al. Novel body fat estimation using machine learning and 3-dimensional optical imaging. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74:842–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-020-0603-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tinsley GM. Five-component model validation of reference, laboratory and field methods of body composition assessment. Br J Nutr. 2021;125:1246–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114520003578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.02.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tinsley GM, Harty PS, Stratton MT, Smith RW, Rodriguez C, Siedler MR. Tracking changes in body composition: comparison of methods and influence of pre-assessment standardisation. Br J Nutr. 2022;127:1656–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114521002579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McCarthy C, Tinsley GM, Yang S, Irving BA, Wong MC, Bennett JP, et al. Smartphone prediction of skeletal muscle mass: model development and validation in adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.02.003

  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0501-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cabre HE, Blue MNM, Hirsch KR, Brewer GJ, Gould LM, Nelson AG, et al. Validity of a three-dimensional body scanner: comparison against a 4-compartment model and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021;46:644–50. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2020-0744

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2016.109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tian IY, Wong MC, Kennedy S, Kelly NN, Liu YE, Garber AK, et al. A device-agnostic shape model for automated body composition estimates from 3D optical scans. Med Phys. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15843

  27. Wong MC, Ng BK, Tian I, Sobhiyeh S, Pagano I, Dechenaud M, et al. A pose-independent method for accurate and precise body composition from 3D optical scans. Obesity. 2021;29:1835–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.23256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ashby N, Jake LaPorte G, Richardson D, Scioletti M, Heymsfield SB, Shepherd JA, et al. Translating digital anthropometry measurements obtained from different 3D body image scanners. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2023;77:872–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-023-01289-5

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sobhiyeh S, Borel N, Dechenaud M, Graham CA, Wong M, Wolenski P, et al. Fully automated pipeline for body composition estimation from 3D optical scans using principal component analysis: a shape up study. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020;2020:1853–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/embc44109.2020.9175211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Morse S, Talty K, Kuiper P, Scioletti M, Heymsfield SB, Atkinson RL, et al. Machine learning prediction of combat basic training injury from 3D body shape images. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0235017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Nelson R, Cheatham J, Gallagher D, Bigelman K, Thomas DM. Revisiting the United States Army body composition standards: a receiver operating characteristic analysis. Int J Obes. 2019;43:1508–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0195-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Harty PS, Friedl KE, Nindl BC, Harry JR, Vellers HL, Tinsley GM. Military body composition standards and physical performance: historical perspectives and future directions. J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36:3551–61. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000004142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Keith DS, Scherrer D, Nunley B, Boykin JR, Green JJ, Siedler MR, et al. Anthropometric predictors of conventional deadlift kinematics and kinetics: a preliminary study. Int J Exerc Sci. 2023;16:429–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith M, Turner D, Spencer C, Gist N, Ferreira S, Quigley K, et al. Body shape and performance on the US Army Combat Fitness Test: insights from a 3D body image scanner. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0283566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283566

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Bennett JP, Liu YE, Quon BK, Kelly NN, Leong LT, Wong MC, et al. Three-dimensional optical body shape and features improve prediction of metabolic disease risk in a diverse sample of adults. Obesity. 2022;30:1589–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.23470

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pleuss JD, Talty K, Morse S, Kuiper P, Scioletti M, Heymsfield SB, et al. A machine learning approach relating 3D body scans to body composition in humans. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73:200–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0337-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by Greyscale Holdings, Inc. (DBA Prism Labs; Award #: A22-0305-001). Based on the research contract, the sponsor was able to review the present manuscript to ensure the technology was accurately described. Besides confirming the technical description of the scanning technology, the manufacturer played no role in the present manuscript, including the statistical analysis, writing, and decision to publish. A previous in-kind donation of the SS20 scanner (Size Stream, Cary, NC, USA) used in the present study allowed the research to proceed. This in-kind donation was unrelated to the present study, and this manufacturer had no role in any aspect of the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Grant M. Tinsley, Christian Rodriguez, Madelin R. Siedler, Ethan Tinoco, Sarah J. White, Christian LaValle, Alexandra Brojanac, Brielle DeHaven, Jaylynn Rasco & Christine M. Florez

  2. School of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA

    Austin J. Graybeal

Authors
  1. Grant M. Tinsley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Madelin R. Siedler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ethan Tinoco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah J. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian LaValle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexandra Brojanac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Brielle DeHaven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jaylynn Rasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Christine M. Florez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Austin J. Graybeal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GMT designed the work; CR, MRS, ET, SJW, CL, AB, BD, and JR collected the data; GMT drafted the initial manuscript; all authors reviewed the manuscript for intellectual content, approved the manuscript, and agree to be accountable for the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant M. Tinsley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

GMT has received in-kind support for his research laboratory, in the form of equipment loan or donation, from manufacturers of body composition assessment devices, including Size Stream LLC; Naked Labs, Inc.; Prism Labs, Inc.; RJL Systems; MuscleSound; and Biospace, Inc. None of these entities played a role in the present study, besides the financial support from Prism Labs described in the funding section.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board (IRB #2022-610), and all participants provided written informed consent prior to participation.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tinsley, G.M., Rodriguez, C., Siedler, M.R. et al. Mobile phone applications for 3-dimensional scanning and digital anthropometry: a precision comparison with traditional scanners. Eur J Clin Nutr (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-024-01424-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-024-01424-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links