Background: Recent three-dimensional optical (3DO) imaging advancements have provided a more accessible, affordable, and self–operating opportunities for assessing body composition. 3DO is accurate and precise compared to clinical measures measured by dual–energy X–ray absorptiometry (DXA) in diverse study samples. However, the accuracy and precision of an overall 3DO body composition model in specific subgroups is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate 3DOs accuracy and precision by subgroups of age, body mass index (BMI), and ethnicity/race. Methods: A cross–sectional analysis was performed using the Shape Up! Adults study. Each participant received duplicate 3DO and DXA scans. 3DO meshes were digitally registered and reposed using Meshcapade to standardize the vertices and pose. Principal component analysis was performed on the registered 3DO meshes to orthogonalize and reduce the dimensionality of the data. The resulting principal components estimated DXA whole–body and regional body composition using stepwise forward linear regression with five–fold cross–validation. Duplicate 3DO and DXA scans were used for test–retest precision. Student t–test was performed between 3DO and DXA by subgroup to determine significant differences. One–way ANOVA determined if intra–group precision had significant differences. P–value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Six hundred thirty–four participants (females = 346) had completed the study at the time of the analysis. 3DO total fat mass (FM) and fat–free mass (FFM) in the entire sample achieved R2s of 0.94 and 0.92 with RMSEs of 2.91 kg and 2.76 kg, respectively, in females and similarly in males. 3DO total FM and FFM achieved a %CV (RMSE) of 1.76% (0.44 kg) and 1.97% (0.44 kg), while DXA had a %CV (RMSE) of 0.98% (0.24 kg) and 0.59% (0.27 kg), respectively, in females and similarly in males. There were no mean differences by age group (p–value > 0.068). However, there were mean differences for underweight females, NHOPI females and males, and Asian and black females (p–value < 0.038). There were no significant differences among the subgroups for precision (p–value > 0.109). Conclusion: A single 3DO body composition model derived from a highly–stratified dataset performed well against DXA with minimal differences detected for accuracy and precision. Adjustments to specific subgroups may be warranted to improve the accuracy in those that had significant differences. Nevertheless, 3DO produced accurate and precise body composition estimates that can be used on diverse populations.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03637855

Phases of this study were funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIH R01 DK R01DK109008).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

All participants provided informed consent. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at Pennington Biomedical Research Center (IRB study #2016-053), University of California, San Francisco (IRB #15-18066), and the University of Hawaii Office of Research Compliance (UH ORC, CHS #2017-01018)

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes