Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Power, M.L. and Schulkin, J. (2008) Sex Differences in Fat Storage, Fat Metabolism, and the Health Risks from Obesity: Possible Evolutionary Origins. British Journal of Nutrition, 99, 931-940.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114507853347

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Optimization of Contrast Material Dose for Abdominal Multi-Detector Row CT: Predicting Patient Lean Body Weight by Using Preliminary Transverse CT Images

    AUTHORS: Antonino Guerrisi, Daniele Marin, Huiman Barnhart, Lisa Ho, Thomas L. Toth, Carlo Catalano, Rendon C. Nelson

    KEYWORDS: Lean Body Weight; Multi-Detector CT; Contrast Dose

    JOURNAL NAME: Advances in Computed Tomography, Vol.3 No.1, March 28, 2014

    ABSTRACT: Estimated LBW could be used to determine the contrast material dose and rate during MDCT. The aim of this study is to test the accuracy of a technique for estimation of lean body weight (LBW) from a single multi-detector row computed tomographic (MDCT) abdominal image, using a bioelectrical body composition analyzer scale as the reference standard. CT images of 21 patients with previously measured LBW (mLBW) were processed using computer-assisted, vendor-specific software (Advantage Windows 4.2; GE Healthcare, Inc). For each transverse image, a fat-fraction was automatically measured as the number of fat pixels (-200 to -50 HU) divided by the total number of pixels having an attenuation value ≥-200 HU. Estimated LBW (eLBW) of five single contiguous sections was calculated in each of three abdominal regions (upper abdomen, mid abdomen and pelvis) by multiplying TBW by (1 – fat-fraction). Bland-Altman plot with limits of agreement was used to assess agreement between mLBW and eLBW. The mean mLBW for all patients was 56 kg (range, 39 - 75 kg). Mean differences and limits of agreement between mLBW and eLBW measurements for the upper abdomen, mid abdomen and pelvis reported were -8.9 kg (-25.6 kg, +7.5 kg), -10.6 kg (-27.7 kg, +6.4 kg), and +0.5 kg (-12.8 kg, +13.8 kg) respectively. eLBW deriving directly from a transverse CT image of the pelvis can accurately predict mLBW.