Evaluation of indirect methods for estimating body fat in dogs using electrical bioimpedance and morphometry

BCS (1/9)	BCS (1/5)	Breed	n	Body condition
5	3.0	Mixed-breed	3	Lean
		Pinscher	2
6	3.5	Mixed-breed	6	Lean
		Australian Shepherd	1
		Pitbull	1
7	4.0	Yorkshire Terrier	1	Obese
8	4.5	Cocker Spaniel	1	Obese
		Mixed-breed	1
9	5.0	Beagle	1	Obese
Total			17

[i] Note: Dogs with a body condition score ≥ 7/9 were classified as overweight or obese. For the 5-point scale, dogs with a BCS ≥ 4/5 were considered overweight or obese.

Table 2:

Morphometric results of the study population.

Variable	Unit	Mean ± SD*	Min.	Max.
Weight	kg	17.02 ± 10.94	3	39
Leg Length	cm	17.97 ± 5.03	10	27
Abdominal circumference	cm	51.02 ± 16.22	22.5	77
Thoracic circumference	cm	58.35 ± 15.49	34	87
Height	cm	42.58 ± 10.04	27	60
Total length	cm	59.11 ± 13.88	38	83

* SD: Standard deviation.

Table 3:

BIA parameters at 50 kHz in the total study population.

Variable	Unit	Mean ± SD*	Minimum	Maximum
Resistance	Ω	252.35 ± 99.71	115.50	435.80
Reactance	Ω	23.32 ± 10.02	9.00	40.70
Phase Angle	°	5.72 ± 2.47	1.80	10.00

* SD: Standard deviation.

Table 4:

Comparison of BIA variables between obese and lean dogs.

Variable	Body Condition	Mean ± SD*	t (df)**	p-value
Resistance (Ω)	Obese	318.70 ± 113.30	−1.59 (15)	0.13
	Lean	231.90 ± 90.20
Reactance (Ω)	Obese	25.20 ± 12.50	−0.42 (15)	0.67
	Lean	22.70 ± 9.70
Phase angle (°)	Obese	4.60 ± 2.08	1.04 (15)	0.31
	Lean	6.07 ± 5.56

* SD: Standard deviation df: degrees of freedom in independent samples t-test.

Table 5:

Cholesterol values in obese and lean dogs.

Variable	Body Condition	Mean ± SD	t (df)	p-value
Total	Obese	204.00 ± 37.71	1.65 (15)	0.11
Cholesterol	Lean	241.85 ± 41.28
HDL	Obese	137.50 ± 16.01	2.39 (15)	0.03*
Cholesterol	Lean	177.46 ± 31.62

* SD: Standard deviation df: Degrees of freedom in independent samples t-test.

* Statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Table 6:

Bland–Altman analysis between %bf estimation methods.

Method comparison	Bias (%)	Lower limit (95%)	Upper limit (95%)
Method 1 vs Method 2	−3.30	−16.50	9.90
Method 1 vs Method 3	−10.00	−26.60	6.50
Method 1 vs Method 4	−18.50	−57.80	20.80
Method 2 vs Method 3	−6.70	−29.00	15.50
Method 2 vs Method 4	−15.20	−62.70	32.20
Method 3 vs Method 4	−8.50	−44.30	27.30

[i] Note: Bias corresponds to the mean of the differences between methods. Limits of agreement are calculated as bias ± 1.96 standard deviations of the differences. No reference method was used.

Table 7:

Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (ccc) between %bf estimation methods.

Method comparison	CCC	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI
Method 1 vs Method 2	0.75	0.47	0.89
Method 1 vs Method 3	0.45	0.14	0.68
Method 1 vs Method 4	−0.04	−0.26	0.17
Method 2 vs Method 3	0.40	−0.005	0.69
Method 2 vs Method 4	−0.29	−0.56	0.03
Method 3 vs Method 4	0.11	−0.26	0.46

[i] Note. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient: Values close to 1 indicate high agreement, while values close to 0 or negative indicate low or no agreement.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/joeb-2026-0009 | Journal eISSN: 1891-5469

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 59 - 66

Submitted on: May 30, 2026

Published on: Jul 28, 2026

Published by: University of Oslo

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Electrical bioimpedance,

Related subjects:

Bioengineering and biomedical engineering,

Biomedical electronics,

Life sciences,

Biophysics,

Medicine,

Biomedical engineering,

Physics,

Spectroscopy and metrology

© 2026 Daniel Montoya-Barbosa, Clara Helena González-Correa, William Narváez-Solarte, published by University of Oslo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 17 (2026): Issue 1 (January 2026)

Evaluation of indirect methods for estimating body fat in dogs using electrical bioimpedance and morphometry

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Table 7:

Paradigm

My account