Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 27, 2026

Segmentation and Linear Measurement for Body Composition Analysis using Slice-O-Matic and Horos
Published on: March 21, 2021
Appendicular-to-trunk lean mass ratio resolves the height-based normalization paradox in low muscle mass and
Jung Ah Lim1, Sung Hoon Yu1, Jung Hwan Park1
1Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract:
Whether height-based normalization indices for appendicular lean mass (ALM) are metabolically neutral remains uncertain, because such indices may be influenced by adiposity. We evaluated ALM normalized to trunk lean mass (ALM/TLM) - both with bone mineral content excluded - as a normalization strategy potentially less susceptible to adiposity-related distortion. Using the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2010, we analyzed 3,176 adults aged ≥65 years (1,373 men; 1,803 women) for body composition by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Sex-specific Class I and Class II cut-offs were derived from a healthy young reference group aged 20-39 years (n = 3,727) at 1 SD and 2 SD below the young-adult mean. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) was defined by NCEP-ATP III criteria with population-specific waist cut-offs. Survey-weighted regression models were adjusted for age, smoking, alcohol, and physical activity. The appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI; ALM/height2) correlated positively with fat mass index (FMI) (men r=+0.288; women r=+0.358; both p < 0.001), whereas ALM/TLM correlated negatively with FMI (men r=-0.199; women r=-0.243; both p < 0.001). ASMI Class I low muscle mass showed an inverse association with MetS (men odds ratio [OR] 0.496, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.388-0.636; women OR 0.475, 95% CI 0.328-0.686). In contrast, ALM/TLM Class II showed positive associations with MetS (men OR 2.779, 95% CI 2.074-3.722; women OR 2.701, 95% CI 1.680-4.340; both p < 0.001). The inverse ALM/TLM-HOMA-IR association persisted after FMI adjustment (men β=-0.131, p < 0.001; women β=-0.065, p = 0.007). ASMI correlated positively with adiposity, while ASMI-defined low muscle mass was inversely associated with MetS, suggesting that ASMI may partly reflect body size/adiposity rather than relative muscle depletion alone; this inverse association should not be interpreted as protective. By contrast, ALM/TLM-defined low muscle mass showed consistently positive associations with MetS across adiposity strata, supporting further evaluation of ALM/TLM, although its clinical validity remains unestablished.

