INTRODUCTION: There is great interest in the nutritional strategies for the prevention of age-related cognitive decline, yet the best methods for nutritional assessment in the populations at risk for dementia are still evolving. Our study objective was to examine the reliability and validity of the 2 common nutritional assessments (plasma nutrient biomarkers and Food Frequency Questionnaire) in the people at risk for dementia. METHODS: Thirty-eight elders, half with amnestic-mild cognitive impairment were recruited. Nutritional assessments were collected together at the baseline and again at 1 month. Intraclass and Pearson correlation coefficients quantified reliability and validity. RESULTS: Twenty-six nutrients were examined. The reliability was very good or better for 77% (20/26, intraclass correlation coefficients or ICC ≥0.75) of the plasma nutrient biomarkers and for 88% of the food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) estimates. Twelve of the nutrient biomarkers were as reliable as the commonly measured plasma cholesterol (ICC≥0.92). FFQ and plasma long-chain fatty acids (docosahexaenoic acid, r=0.39, eicosapentaenoic acid, r=0.39) and carotenoids (α-carotene, r=0.49; lutein + zeaxanthin, r=0.48; β-carotene, r=0.43; β-cryptoxanthin, r=0.41) were correlated, but these significant correlations were present only in non-impaired elders. CONCLUSION: The reliability and validity of the FFQ and nutrient biomarkers vary according to the nutrient of interest. Memory deficit attenuates validity and inflates reliability of FFQ reports. Many plasma nutrient biomarkers have very good reliability over 1-month, regardless of memory state. This objective method can circumvent sources of error seen in other less direct and subjective methods of nutritional assessment.
INTRODUCTION: There is great interest in the nutritional strategies for the prevention of age-related cognitive decline, yet the best methods for nutritional assessment in the populations at risk for dementia are still evolving. Our study objective was to examine the reliability and validity of the 2 common nutritional assessments (plasma nutrient biomarkers and Food Frequency Questionnaire) in the people at risk for dementia. METHODS: Thirty-eight elders, half with amnestic-mild cognitive impairment were recruited. Nutritional assessments were collected together at the baseline and again at 1 month. Intraclass and Pearson correlation coefficients quantified reliability and validity. RESULTS: Twenty-six nutrients were examined. The reliability was very good or better for 77% (20/26, intraclass correlation coefficients or ICC ≥0.75) of the plasma nutrient biomarkers and for 88% of the food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) estimates. Twelve of the nutrient biomarkers were as reliable as the commonly measured plasma cholesterol (ICC≥0.92). FFQ and plasma long-chain fatty acids (docosahexaenoic acid, r=0.39, eicosapentaenoic acid, r=0.39) and carotenoids (α-carotene, r=0.49; lutein + zeaxanthin, r=0.48; β-carotene, r=0.43; β-cryptoxanthin, r=0.41) were correlated, but these significant correlations were present only in non-impaired elders. CONCLUSION: The reliability and validity of the FFQ and nutrient biomarkers vary according to the nutrient of interest. Memory deficit attenuates validity and inflates reliability of FFQ reports. Many plasma nutrient biomarkers have very good reliability over 1-month, regardless of memory state. This objective method can circumvent sources of error seen in other less direct and subjective methods of nutritional assessment.
Authors: Dorothea Strozyk; Lenore J Launer; Paul A Adlard; Robert A Cherny; Andrew Tsatsanis; Irene Volitakis; Kaj Blennow; Helen Petrovitch; Lon R White; Ashley I Bush Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2007-12-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Saravanan S Karuppagounder; Hui Xu; Qingli Shi; Lian H Chen; Steve Pedrini; David Pechman; Harriet Baker; M Flint Beal; Sam E Gandy; Gary E Gibson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: P Barberger-Gateau; C Raffaitin; L Letenneur; C Berr; C Tzourio; J F Dartigues; A Alpérovitch Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-11-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Yurii B Shvetsov; Brenda Y Hernandez; Sze H Wong; Lynne R Wilkens; Adrian A Franke; Marc T Goodman Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Yang Song; Carolyn S Chung; Richard S Bruno; Maret G Traber; Kenneth H Brown; Janet C King; Emily Ho Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Aron M Troen; Melissa Shea-Budgell; Barbara Shukitt-Hale; Donald E Smith; Jacob Selhub; Irwin H Rosenberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-08-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gene L Bowman; Hiroko Dodge; Balz Frei; Carlo Calabrese; Barry S Oken; Jeffrey A Kaye; Joseph F Quinn Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2009 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: G L Bowman; L C Silbert; D Howieson; H H Dodge; M G Traber; B Frei; J A Kaye; J Shannon; J F Quinn Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Martha Clare Morris; Christy C Tangney; Yamin Wang; Frank M Sacks; Lisa L Barnes; David A Bennett; Neelum T Aggarwal Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Danielle Cahoon; Shruti P Shertukde; Esther E Avendano; Jirayu Tanprasertsuk; Tammy M Scott; Elizabeth J Johnson; Mei Chung; Nanguneri Nirmala Journal: Ann Med Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 4.709