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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Comparing digital anthropometrics from mobile applications to reference methods: a scoping review

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 79, pages 809–826 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

This scoping review aimed to assess the repeatability and accuracy of Digital Anthropometry by Mobile Application (DAM) compared to reference methods for estimating anthropometric dimensions, body volume (BV), and body composition. A comprehensive search was conducted on December 8th, 2024, without restrictions on language, time, sex, ethnicity, age, or health condition. We found 14 different DAMs across the 23 included studies. Reference methods for each estimated variable were: (a) Body circumferences—tape measure; (b) body mass—calibrated scale; (c) body length—stadiometer; (d) BV—Underwater Weighing; (e) percentage of body fat—Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), BOD POD, 3, 4, and 5-compartment models; (f) fat mass and fat-free mass—DXA, 3 and 4-compartment models; (g) appendicular Lean Mass—DXA. DAMs demonstrated high repeatability and accuracy at a mean level in most studies. However, their accuracy is lower at individual-level analysis and for tracking changes over time. Estimated BV showed high accuracy compared to UWW (SEE = 0.68; MD = 0.04 to 0.1; LoA = 2.86), including the BV-derived DAMs integrated into alternative multi-compartment models compared to reference methods. As relatively new methods, DAMs offer numerous possibilities and areas for exploration in future studies. However, caution is advised due to their potentially low or unknown accuracy at the individual level.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. Cerqueira MS, Amorim PR dos S, Encarnação IGA, Rezende LMT, et al. Equations based on anthropometric measurements for adipose tissue, body fat, or body density prediction in children and adolescents: a scoping review. Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity. 2022;27: 2321–38.

  2. Heymsfield SB, Stevens J. Anthropometry: continued refinements and new developments of an ancient method. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;105:1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Minetto MA, Pietrobelli A, Busso C, Bennett JP, Ferraris A, Shepherd JA, et al. Digital Anthropometry for Body Circumference Measurements: European Phenotypic Variations throughout the Decades. J Personalized Med. 2022;12:906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Morze J, Rücker G, Danielewicz A, Przybyłowicz K, Neuenschwander M, Schlesinger S, et al. Impact of different training modalities on anthropometric outcomes in patients with obesity: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2021;22:e13218.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang ZM, Pierson RN Jr, Heymsfield SB. The five-level model: a new approach to organizing body-composition research. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;56:19–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vegelin AL, Brukx LJCE, Waelkens JJ, Van den Broeck J. Influence of knowledge, training and experience of observers on the reliability of anthropometric measurements in children. Ann Hum Biol. 2003;30:65–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jones PRM, West GM, Harris DH, Read JB. The loughborough anthropometric shadow scanner (LASS). Endeavour. 1989;13:162–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heymsfield SB, Bourgeois B, Ng BK, Sommer MJ, Li X, Shepherd JA. Digital anthropometry: a critical review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72:680–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Haleem A, Mohd Javaid. 3D scanning applications in medical field: A literature-based review. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2019;7:199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Orsso CE, Silva MIB, Gonzalez MC, Rubin DA, Heymsfield SB, Prado CM, et al. Assessment of body composition in pediatric overweight and obesity: A systematic review of the reliability and validity of common techniques. Obes Rev. 2020;21:e13041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mocini E, Cammarota C, Frigerio F, Muzzioli L, Piciocchi C, Lacalaprice D, et al. Digital anthropometry: a systematic review on precision, reliability and accuracy of most popular existing technologies. Nutrients. 2023; 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020302.

  12. Macdonald EZ, Vehrs PR, Fellingham GW, Eggett D, George JD, Hager R. Validity and reliability of assessing body composition using a mobile application. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:2593–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith B, McCarthy C, Dechenaud ME, Wong MC, Shepherd J, Heymsfield SB. Anthropometric evaluation of a 3D scanning mobile application. Obes (Silver Spring. 2022;5:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Majmudar MD, Chandra S, Yakkala K, Kennedy S, Agrawal A, Sippel M, et al. Smartphone camera based assessment of adiposity: a validation study. NPJ Digital Med. 2022;5:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L. How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO. BJOG. 2014;121:784–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Graybeal AJ, Brandner CF, Tinsley GM. Validity and reliability of a mobile digital imaging analysis trained by a four-compartment model. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13113.

  18. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith MK, Staynor JMD, El-Sallam A, Ebert JR, Ackland TR. Longitudinal concordance of body composition and anthropometric assessment by a novel smartphone application across a 12-week self-managed weight loss intervention. Br J Nutr. 2023;1–7.

  20. Farina GL, Spataro F, De Lorenzo A, Lukaski H. A smartphone application for personal assessments of body composition and phenotyping. Sensors (Basel). 2016; 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/s16122163.

  21. Marx R, Porcari JP, Doberstein S, Mikat R, Ryskey A, Foster C. Ability of the LeanScreen App to Accurately Assess Body Composition. IJREP - International Journal of Research in Exercise Physiology. 2017. https://ijrep.org/ability-of-the-leanscreen-app-to-accurately-assess-body-composition/ (accessed 15 Apr2023).

  22. Wetzel O, Schmidt AR, Seiler M, Scaramuzza D, Seifert B, Spahn DR, et al. A smartphone application to determine body length for body weight estimation in children: a prospective clinical trial. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018;32:571–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neufeld EV, Seltzer RA, Sazzad T, Dolezal BA. A multidomain approach to assessing the convergent and concurrent validity of a mobile application when compared to conventional methods of determining body composition. Sensors (Basel). 2020;20. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20216165.

  24. Fedewa MV, Sullivan K, Hornikel B, Holmes CJ, Metoyer CJ, Esco MR. Accuracy of a mobile 2D imaging system for body volume and subsequent composition estimates in a three-compartment model. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021;53:1003–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sullivan K, Hornikel B, Holmes CJ, Esco MR, Fedewa MV. Validity of a 3-compartment body composition model using body volume derived from a novel 2-dimensional image analysis program. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2021;76:111–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Farina G, Orlandi C, Lukaski H, Nescolarde L. Digital single-image smartphone assessment of total body fat and abdominal fat using machine learning. SENSORS. 2022;22. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218365.

  27. Graybeal AJ, Brandner CF, Tinsley GM. Visual body composition assessment methods: A 4-compartment model comparison of smartphone-based artificial intelligence for body composition estimation in healthy adults. Clin Nutr. 2022;41:2464–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nana A, Staynor JMD, Arlai S, El-Sallam A, Dhungel N, Smith MK. Agreement of anthropometric and body composition measures predicted from 2D smartphone images and body impedance scales with criterion methods. Obes Res Clin Pr. 2022;16:37–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sullivan K, Metoyer CJ, Hornikel B, Holmes CJ, Nickerson BS, Esco MR, et al. Agreement between A 2-dimensional digital image-based 3-compartment body composition model and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for the estimation of relative adiposity. J Clin Densitom. 2022;25:244–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Graybeal AJ, Brandner CF, Tinsley GM. Evaluation of automated anthropometrics produced by smartphone-based machine learning: a comparison with traditional anthropometric assessments. Br J Nutr. 2023;1–11.

  31. McCarthy C, Tinsley GM, Yang S, Irving BA, Wong MC, Bennett JP et al. Smartphone prediction of skeletal muscle mass: model development and validation in adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023; S0002-9165(23)04098–4.

  32. Choudhary S, Iyer G, Smith BM, Li J, Sippel M, Criminisi A et al. Development and validation of an accurate smartphone application for measuring waist-to-hip circumference ratio. npj Digit Med. 2023;6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00909-5.

  33. Minetto MA, Pietrobelli A, Ferraris A, Busso C, Magistrali M, Vignati C, et al. Equations for smartphone prediction of adiposity and appendicular lean mass in youth soccer players. Sci Rep. 2023;13:20734.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Florez CM, Rodriguez C, Siedler MR, Tinoco E, Tinsley GM. Body composition estimation from mobile phone three-dimensional imaging: evaluation of the USA army one-site method. Br J Nutr. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114524002216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Graybeal AJ, Swafford SH, Compton AT, Renna ME, Thorsen T, Stavres J. Predicting bone mineral content from smartphone digital anthropometrics: evaluation of an existing application and the development of new prediction models. J Clin Densitom. 2024;28:101537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tinsley GM, Rodriguez C, Florez CM, Siedler MR, Tinoco E, McCarthy C et al. Smartphone three-dimensional imaging for body composition assessment using non-rigid avatar reconstruction. Front Med 2024;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1485450.

  37. Yordanov S, Akhter K, Quan Teh J, Naushahi J, Jalloh I. Measurement of head circumference using a smartphone: feasibility cohort study. JMIR Form Res. 2024;8:e54194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Medina Inojosa BJ, Somers VK, Lara-Breitinger K, Johnson LA, Medina-Inojosa JR, Lopez-Jimenez F. Prediction of presence and severity of metabolic syndrome using regional body volumes measured by a multisensor white-light 3D scanner and validation using a mobile technology. Eur Heart J - Digital Health. 2024;5:582–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Graybeal AJ, Brandner CF, Compton AT, Swafford SH, Aultman RS, Vallecillo-Bustos A, et al. Differences in metabolic syndrome severity and prevalence across nine waist circumference measurements collected from smartphone digital anthropometrics. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2024;64:390–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Meneguzzo P, Behrens SC, Favaro A, Tenconi E, Vindigni V, Teufel M, et al. Body image disturbances and weight bias after obesity surgery: semantic and visual evaluation in a controlled study, findings from the BodyTalk Project. Obes Surg. 2021;31:1625–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Magrini M, Curzio O, Tampucci M, Donzelli G, Cori L, Imiotti MC, et al. Anorexia nervosa, body image perception and virtual reality therapeutic applications: state of the art and operational proposal. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:2533.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Braun-Trocchio R, Ray A, Graham R, Brandner CF, Warfield E, Renteria J, et al. Validation of a novel perceptual body image assessment method using mobile digital imaging analysis: a cross-sectional multicenter evaluation in a multiethnic sample. Behav Ther. 2024;55:558–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Graybeal AJ, Brandner CF, Aultman R, Ojo DE, Braun-Trocchio R. Differences in perceptual and attitudinal body image between White and African-American adults matched for sex, age, and body composition. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2024;11:3466–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fields DA, Hunter GR, Goran MI. Validation of the BOD POD with hydrostatic weighing: Influence of body clothingin. Int J Obes. 2000;24:200–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Park SS, Lim S, Kim H, Kim KM. Comparison of two DXA systems, hologic horizon W and GE lunar prodigy, for assessing body composition in healthy Korean Adults. Endocrinol Metab. 2021;36:1219–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Earthman CP. Body composition tools for assessment of adult malnutrition at the bedside: a tutorial on research considerations and clinical applications. J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2015;39:787–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sobhiyeh S, Kennedy S, Dunkel A, Dechenaud ME, Weston JA, Shepherd J, et al. Digital anthropometry for body circumference measurements: toward the development of universal three-dimensional optical system analysis software. Obes Sci Pr. 2021;7:35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tinsley GM, Harty PS, Siedler MR, Stratton MT, Rodriguez C. Improved precision of 3-dimensional optical imaging for anthropometric measurement using non-rigid avatar reconstruction and parameterized body model fitting. Clin Nutr Open Sci. 2023;50:40–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Young KD, Korotzer NC. Weight estimation methods in children: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68:441–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Selvanathan T, Guo T, Kwan E, Chau V, Brant R, Synnes AR, et al. Head circumference, total cerebral volume and neurodevelopment in preterm neonates. Arch Dis Child-Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2022;107:181–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tinsley GM, Harty PS, Stratton MT, Smith RW, Rodriguez C, Siedler MR. Tracking changes in body composition: comparison of methods and influence of pre-assessment standardisation. Br J Nutr. 2022;127:1656–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gilligan LA, Towbin AJ, Dillman JR, Somasundaram E, Trout AT. Quantification of skeletal muscle mass: sarcopenia as a marker of overall health in children and adults. Pediatr Radio. 2020;50:455–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Brandt IAG, Starup-Linde J, Andersen SS, Viggers R. Diagnosing Osteoporosis in Diabetes—A Systematic Review on BMD and Fractures. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2024;22:223–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Baglietto N, Albaladejo-Saura M, Esparza-Ros F, Vaquero-Cristóbal R. Agreement and differences between the equations for estimating muscle and bone mass using the anthropometric method in recreational strength trainees. PeerJ. 2024;12:e17506.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Slemenda CW, Hui SL, Williams CJ, Christian JC, Meaney FJ, Johnston CC Jr. Bone mass and anthropometric measurements in adult females. Bone Min. 1990;11:101–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Withers RT, LaForgia J, Pillans RK, Shipp NJ, Chatterton BE, Schultz CG, et al. Comparisons of two-, three-, and four-compartment models of body composition analysis in men and women. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998;85:238–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Schoeller DA, van Santen E, Peterson DW, Dietz W, Jaspan J, Klein PD. Total body water measurement in humans with 18O and 2H labeled water. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980;33:2686–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Education, Center for Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil

    Irismar Gonçalves Almeida da Encarnação, Cláudia Eliza Patrocínio de Oliveira & Osvaldo Costa Moreira

  2. Academic Department of Education, Federal Institute Southeast of Minas Gerais, Campus Rio Pomba, Brazil

    Irismar Gonçalves Almeida da Encarnação & Matheus Santos Cerqueira

  3. Independent Researcher, São Paulo, Brazil

    Paulo Henrique Ribeiro Fernandes Almeida

  4. Exercise and Health Laboratory, CIPER, Faculdade Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Analiza Mónica Lopes de Almeida Silva

  5. Department of Movement Sciences and Sports, Training, School of Sport Sciences, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

    Analiza Mónica Lopes de Almeida Silva

  6. Graduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

    Diego Augusto Santos Silva

  7. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, USA

    Steven B. Heymsfield

Authors
  1. Irismar Gonçalves Almeida da Encarnação
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matheus Santos Cerqueira
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paulo Henrique Ribeiro Fernandes Almeida
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cláudia Eliza Patrocínio de Oliveira
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Analiza Mónica Lopes de Almeida Silva
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Diego Augusto Santos Silva
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steven B. Heymsfield
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Osvaldo Costa Moreira
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IGAE and MSC conceived and designed the work that led to the submission, acquired data, played an important role in interpreting the results, and drafted the manuscript; PHA, DAS, CEP, MAS, SBH and OCM designed the work and played an important role in interpreting the results. All authors revised the manuscript, approved the final version, agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irismar Gonçalves Almeida da Encarnação.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Encarnação, I.G.A.d., Cerqueira, M.S., Almeida, P.H.R.F. et al. Comparing digital anthropometrics from mobile applications to reference methods: a scoping review. Eur J Clin Nutr 79, 809–826 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-025-01613-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-025-01613-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links