Evaluation shows DEXA-derived methods improve muscle volume quantification using inter-limb asymmetry, suggesting further clinical application.
Background/Objectives: This study evaluated the validity of DEXA-derived muscle quantification by assessing its agreement with AI-assisted CT measurements of muscle volume and intramuscular adipose tissue. It also examined whether inter-limb asymmetry improves DEXA–CT agreement beyond absolute DEXA values. The influence of lower-limb rotation on DEXA measurements was assessed, and the study aimed to clarify how DEXA should be obtained and interpreted to more accurately reflect true muscle status. Methods: Fifty-two patients who completed CT and DEXA within 14 days were included. CT was used to obtain pure muscle volume and intramuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) using a standardized AI segmentation protocol, and corresponding DEXA thigh segmentation provided lean mass and fat percentage. Position-specific correlation analysis, regression, and Bland–Altman agreement testing were performed for 104 limbs. The same analyses were applied to inter-limb differences to isolate within-person asymmetry and reduce between-person variance. Results: DEXA lean mass correlated with CT pure muscle volume (r = 0.776, p < 0.001), and inter-limb asymmetry further improved alignment with CT (r = 0.857, p < 0.001). However, DEXA fat mass asymmetry demonstrated no association with CT IMAT asymmetry (r = −0.004, p = 0.979). When results were stratified by the recorded rotational groups, the highest correlation was observed in the neutral position (r = 0.900, p < 0.001). Bland–Altman analyses showed wide limits of agreement for all absolute measurements, whereas inter-limb asymmetry demonstrated markedly narrower limits of agreement, indicating superior numerical consistency. Conclusions: Absolute DEXA estimates showed limited agreement with CT and varied with limb position. Inter-limb asymmetry improved lean mass assessment, whereas fat mass and percentage did not correspond to CT-based IMAT. DEXA may therefore be used as a complementary tool for evaluating regional muscle quantity, but not for assessing muscle quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Do Kyung Lee (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: