↓ Skip to main content

A Review of the Methods and Associated Mathematical Models Used in the Measurement of Fat-Free Mass

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacokinetics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
A Review of the Methods and Associated Mathematical Models Used in the Measurement of Fat-Free Mass
Published in
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40262-017-0622-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaydeep Sinha, Stephen B. Duffull, Hesham S. Al-Sallami

Abstract

Fat-free mass (FFM) represents the lean component of the body devoid of fat. It has been shown to be a useful predictor of drug dose requirements, particularly in obesity where the excess fat mass does not contribute to drug clearance. However, measuring FFM involves complex and/or expensive experimental methodologies that preclude their use in routine clinical practice. Thus, models to predict FFM from readily measurable variables, such as body weight and height, have been developed and are used in both population pharmacokinetic modelling and clinical practice. In this review, methods used to measure FFM are explained and compared in terms of their assumptions, precision, and limitations. These methods are broadly classified into six different principles: densitometry, hydrometry, bioimpedance, whole-body counting, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and medical imaging. They vary in their processes and key biological assumptions that are often not applicable in certain populations (e.g. children, elderly, and certain disease states). This review provides a summary of the various methods of FFM measurement and estimation, and links these methods to a scientific framework to help clinicians and researchers understand the usefulness and potential limitations of these methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2023.
All research outputs
#3,038,380
of 24,851,605 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#145
of 1,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,367
of 454,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,851,605 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.