Literature DB >> 18344516

Use of recovery biomarkers to calibrate nutrient consumption self-reports in the Women's Health Initiative.

Marian L Neuhouser1, Lesley Tinker, Pamela A Shaw, Dale Schoeller, Sheila A Bingham, Linda Van Horn, Shirley A A Beresford, Bette Caan, Cynthia Thomson, Suzanne Satterfield, Lew Kuller, Gerardo Heiss, Ellen Smit, Gloria Sarto, Judith Ockene, Marcia L Stefanick, Annlouise Assaf, Shirley Runswick, Ross L Prentice.   

Abstract

Underreporting of energy consumption by self-report is well-recognized, but previous studies using recovery biomarkers have not been sufficiently large to establish whether participant characteristics predict misreporting. In 2004-2005, 544 participants in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial completed a doubly labeled water protocol (energy biomarker), 24-hour urine collection (protein biomarker), and self-reports of diet (assessed by food frequency questionnaire (FFQ)), exercise, and lifestyle habits; 111 women repeated all procedures after 6 months. Using linear regression, the authors estimated associations of participant characteristics with misreporting, defined as the extent to which the log ratio (self-reported FFQ/nutritional biomarker) was less than zero. Intervention women in the trial underreported energy intake by 32% (vs. 27% in the comparison arm) and protein intake by 15% (vs. 10%). Younger women had more underreporting of energy (p = 0.02) and protein (p = 0.001), while increasing body mass index predicted increased underreporting of energy and overreporting of percentage of energy derived from protein (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Blacks and Hispanics underreported more than did Caucasians. Correlations of initial measures with repeat measures (n = 111) were 0.72, 0.70, 0.46, and 0.64 for biomarker energy, FFQ energy, biomarker protein, and FFQ protein, respectively. Recovery biomarker data were used in regression equations to calibrate self-reports; the potential application of these equations to disease risk modeling is presented. The authors confirm the existence of systematic bias in dietary self-reports and provide methods of correcting for measurement error.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18344516     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  200 in total

1.  Low urine pH and acid excretion do not predict bone fractures or the loss of bone mineral density: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Tanis R Fenton; Misha Eliasziw; Suzanne C Tough; Andrew W Lyon; Jacques P Brown; David A Hanley
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 2.362

2.  Biomarker-calibrated dietary energy and protein intake associations with diabetes risk among postmenopausal women from the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Lesley F Tinker; Gloria E Sarto; Barbara V Howard; Ying Huang; Marian L Neuhouser; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Jeannette M Beasley; Karen L Margolis; Charles B Eaton; Lawrence S Phillips; Ross L Prentice
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 7.045

3.  Common variants in the CD36 gene are associated with oral fat perception, fat preferences, and obesity in African Americans.

Authors:  Kathleen L Keller; Lisa C H Liang; Johannah Sakimura; Daniel May; Christopher van Belle; Cameron Breen; Elissa Driggin; Beverly J Tepper; Patricia C Lanzano; Liyong Deng; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 5.002

4.  Approaches for quantifying energy intake and %calorie restriction during calorie restriction interventions in humans: the multicenter CALERIE study.

Authors:  Susan B Racette; Sai Krupa Das; Manjushri Bhapkar; Evan C Hadley; Susan B Roberts; Eric Ravussin; Carl Pieper; James P DeLany; William E Kraus; James Rochon; Leanne M Redman
Journal:  Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 4.310

5.  Validity of a multipass, web-based, 24-hour self-administered recall for assessment of total energy intake in blacks and whites.

Authors:  Lenore Arab; Chi-Hong Tseng; Alfonso Ang; Patricia Jardack
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Taking advantage of the strengths of 2 different dietary assessment instruments to improve intake estimates for nutritional epidemiology.

Authors:  Raymond J Carroll; Douglas Midthune; Amy F Subar; Marina Shumakovich; Laurence S Freedman; Frances E Thompson; Victor Kipnis
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Dietary patterns matter: diet beverages and cardiometabolic risks in the longitudinal Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study.

Authors:  Kiyah J Duffey; Lyn M Steffen; Linda Van Horn; David R Jacobs; Barry M Popkin
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 7.045

8.  Short sleep duration is associated with higher energy intake and expenditure among African-American and non-Hispanic white adults.

Authors:  Ruth E Patterson; Jennifer A Emond; Loki Natarajan; Katherine Wesseling-Perry; Laurence N Kolonel; Patricia Jardack; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Lenore Arab
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 4.798

9.  Biomarker-calibrated protein intake and physical function in the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Jeannette M Beasley; Betsy C Wertheim; Andrea Z LaCroix; Ross L Prentice; Marian L Neuhouser; Lesley F Tinker; Stephen Kritchevsky; James M Shikany; Charles Eaton; Zhao Chen; Cynthia A Thomson
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Sedentary behavior and mortality in older women: the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Rebecca Seguin; David M Buchner; Jingmin Liu; Matthew Allison; Todd Manini; Ching-Yun Wang; Joann E Manson; Catherine R Messina; Mahesh J Patel; Larry Moreland; Marcia L Stefanick; Andrea Z Lacroix
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 5.043

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.