Table 1. Comparisons of Carcass Composition Methods.

Reference	Species	Sex	Diet	Methods Compared	Findings
Taicher et al (Taicher et al., 2003)	Mouse	M	40% fat	QMR, DEXA	Strong correlation for bone Better precision of FM and LBM with QMR
Tinsley et al (Tinsley et al., 2004)	Mouse (wild type, DIO and ob/ob)	M, F	16.7% fat or 40% fat	QMR, DEXA, CCA	QMR more precise, earlier detection of increase in FM
Nixon et al (Nixon et al., 2010)	Rat, mouse (outbred, obese, lean)	M	Chow	QMR, CCA	QMR correlated to CCA QMR more precise
Jones et al (Jones et al., 2009)	Mouse	M, F	Undefined	QMR, CCA	QMR significantly overestimated FM QMR underestimated LBM QMR and CCA highly correlated
Makan et al (Makan et al., 1997) Bertin and Clair (Bertin et al., 1998)	Rat	M	Undefined	DEXA, CCA	DEXA highly correlated to CCA for both LBM and FM
Nagy and Clair (Nagy and Clair, 2000)	Mouse	M	Undefined	DEXA, CCA	DEXA overestimated FM DEXA underestimated LBM

This table lists previous comparison of body composition technologies in the literature. DEXA and QMR are newer technologies and were each compared to the gold standard, CCA in rats and mice. Comparisons of QMR/DEXA are more recent and have only included mouse models.

Abbreviations: quantitative magnetic resonance (QMR); dual x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA); diet-induced obesity (DIO); chemical composition analysis (CCA); fat mass (FM); lean body mass (LBM);