Elisabetta Marini

Prof. Elisabetta Marini

Univerisity of Cagliari
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

35Years (1992-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2020 in Clinical Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Elisabetta MariniElisabetta Marini
Elisabetta Marini
Francesco CampaFrancesco Campa
Francesco Campa
RBRoberto Buffa
Roberto Buffa
SSSilvia Stagi
Silvia Stagi
CMCatarina N. Matias
Catarina N. Matias
ASAnaliza M. Silva
Analiza M. Silva

24 February 2020 in Nature Ecology & Evolution
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DFDaniel M. Fernandes
Daniel M. Fernandes
AMAlissa Mittnik
Alissa Mittnik
IOIñigo Olalde
Iñigo Olalde
ILIosif Lazaridis
Iosif Lazaridis
OCOlivia Cheronet
Olivia Cheronet
DRDavid Reich
David Reich

6 March 2013 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RBRoberto Buffa
Roberto Buffa
BSBruno Saragat
Bruno Saragat
SCStefano Cabras
Stefano Cabras
Andrea RinaldiAndrea Rinaldi
Andrea Rinaldi
Elisabetta MariniElisabetta Marini
Elisabetta Marini
Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) is a technique for the assessment of hydration and nutritional status, used in the clinical practice. Specific BIVA is an analytical variant, recently proposed for the Italian elderly population, that adjusts bioelectrical values for body geometry. Evaluating the accuracy of specific BIVA in the adult U.S. population, compared to the ‘classic’ BIVA procedure, using DXA as the reference technique, in order to obtain an interpretative model of body composition. A cross-sectional sample of 1590 adult individuals (836 men and 754 women, 21–49 years old) derived from the NHANES 2003–2004 was considered. Classic and specific BIVA were applied. The sensitivity and specificity in recognizing individuals below the 5th and above the 95th percentiles of percent fat (FMDXA%) and extracellular/intracellular water (ECW/ICW) ratio were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Classic and specific BIVA results were compared by a probit multiple-regression. Specific BIVA was significantly more accurate than classic BIVA in evaluating FMDXA% (ROC areas: 0.84–0.92 and 0.49–0.61 respectively; p = 0.002). The evaluation of ECW/ICW was accurate (ROC areas between 0.83 and 0.96) and similarly performed by the two procedures (p = 0.829). The accuracy of specific BIVA was similar in the two sexes (p = 0.144) and in FMDXA% and ECW/ICW (p = 0.869). Specific BIVA showed to be an accurate technique. The tolerance ellipses of specific BIVA can be used for evaluating FM% and ECW/ICW in the U.S. adult population.

24 January 2022 in European Journal of Applied Physiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Francesco CampaFrancesco Campa
Francesco Campa
Luis Alberto GobboLuis Alberto Gobbo
Luis Alberto Gobbo
SSSilvia Stagi
Silvia Stagi
LCLeticia Trindade Cyrino
Leticia Trindade Cyrino
Stefania ToselliStefania Toselli
Stefania Toselli
GCGiuseppe Coratella
Giuseppe Coratella

24 February 2023 in Clinical Nutrition
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GCGianluca Gortan Cappellari
Gianluca Gortan Cappellari
CGChristelle Guillet
Christelle Guillet
EPEleonora Poggiogalle
Eleonora Poggiogalle
MBMaría D. Ballesteros-Pomar
María D. Ballesteros-Pomar
JBJohn A. Batsis
John A. Batsis
JYJianchun Yu
Jianchun Yu

24 November 2015 in Oecologia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KAKatherine R. Amato
Katherine R. Amato
RMRodolfo Martinez-Mota
Rodolfo Martinez-Mota
Nicoletta RighiniNicoletta Righini
Nicoletta Righini
MRMelissa Raguet-Schofield
Melissa Raguet-Schofield
FCFabiana Paola Corcione
Fabiana Paola Corcione
SLSteven R. Leigh
Steven R. Leigh