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.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Ultrasound and MRI measured changes in muscle mass gives different estimates but similar conclusions: a Bayesian approach

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 73, pages 1203–1205 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to use a Bayesian approach to compare the relative change in muscle size between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound measured muscle thickness (MTH) following 6 weeks of concentric and eccentric blood flow restricted exercise. Changes at each site were as follows: concentric 50% site (MRI: 10.2%, MTH: 8.7%), concentric 10 cm site (MRI: 12%, MTH: 4.5%), eccentric 50% site (MRI: −1.7%, MTH: 2.6%), and eccentric 10 cm site (MRI: 5.2%, MTH: 0.5%). When testing the difference between estimates using a default prior of 0.707, we provided evidence that the estimate at the 50% site of the concentric arm was similar between ultrasound and MRI [Median % (95% credible interval): −1.1 (−8.2, 5.8)]. However, evidence for other sites suggested differences or a degree of uncertainty. Both methods produce similar conclusions about the presence of growth but the magnitude of that change appears different at most sites.

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
Fig. 2

References

  1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39:412–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abe T, Kawakami Y, Suzuki Y, Gunji A, Fukunaga T. Effects of 20 days bed rest on muscle morphology. J Gravit Physiol. 1997;4:S10–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dupont AC, Sauerbrei EE, Fenton PV, Shragge PC, Loeb GE, Richmond FJ. Real-time sonography to estimate muscle thickness: comparison with MRI and CT. J Clin Ultrasound. 2001;29:230–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Franchi MV, Longo S, Mallinson J, Quinlan JI, Taylor T, Greenhaff PL, et al. Muscle thickness correlates to muscle cross-sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:846–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Bell ZW, et al. Changes in muscle size via MRI and ultrasound: Are they equivalent? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:1467–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagenmakers EJ, Love J, Marsman M, Jamil T, Ly A, Verhagen J, et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25:58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wagenmakers EJ, Marsman M, Jamil T, Ly A, Verhagen J, Love J, et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25:35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yasuda T, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Abe T. Effects of blood flow restricted low-intensity concentric or eccentric training on muscle size and strength. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e52843.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, Garzarella L. Time course for strength and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000;81:174–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, Price TB, Hoffman EP, Angelopoulos TJ, et al. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:964–72. (6).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA

    Jeremy P. Loenneke, Scott J. Dankel, Zachary W. Bell, Robert W. Spitz & Takashi Abe

  2. School of Nursing, Seirei Christopher University, Shizuoka, Japan

    Tomohiro Yasuda

Authors
  1. Jeremy P. Loenneke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott J. Dankel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zachary W. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert W. Spitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takashi Abe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tomohiro Yasuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JPL: study design, performed statistical analysis, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafting of the manuscript; and SJD, ZWB, RWS, TA, TY: study design, interpretation of the data, and the drafting of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy P. Loenneke.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loenneke, J.P., Dankel, S.J., Bell, Z.W. et al. Ultrasound and MRI measured changes in muscle mass gives different estimates but similar conclusions: a Bayesian approach. Eur J Clin Nutr 73, 1203–1205 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0431-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0431-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links