Yohannes Adama Melaku1, Tiffany K Gill2, Anne W Taylor2, Robert Adams3, Zumin Shi2. 1. Population Research and Outcome Studies, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, SAHMRI, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. yohannes.melaku@adelaide.edu.au. 2. Population Research and Outcome Studies, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, SAHMRI, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. 3. Health Observatory, Discipline of Medicine, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Campus, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5011, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The relative advantages of dietary analysis methods, particularly in identifying dietary patterns associated with bone mass, have not been investigated. We evaluated principal component analysis (PCA), partial least-squares (PLS) and reduced-rank regressions (RRR) in determining dietary patterns associated with bone mass. METHODS: Data from 1182 study participants (45.9% males; aged 50 years and above) from the North West Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS) were used. Dietary data were collected using a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Dietary patterns were constructed using PCA, PLS and RRR and compared based on the performance to identify plausible patterns associated with bone mineral density (BMD) and content (BMC). RESULTS: PCA, PLS and RRR identified two, four and four dietary patterns, respectively. All methods identified similar patterns for the first two factors (factor 1, "prudent" and factor 2, "western" patterns). Three, one and none of the patterns derived by RRR, PLS and PCA were significantly associated with bone mass, respectively. The "prudent" and dairy (factor 3) patterns determined by RRR were positively and significantly associated with BMD and BMC. Vegetables and fruit pattern (factor 4) of PLS and RRR was negatively and significantly associated with BMD and BMC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RRR was found to be more appropriate in identifying more (plausible) dietary patterns that are associated with bone mass than PCA and PLS. Nevertheless, the advantage of RRR over the other two methods (PCA and PLS) should be confirmed in future studies.
PURPOSE: The relative advantages of dietary analysis methods, particularly in identifying dietary patterns associated with bone mass, have not been investigated. We evaluated principal component analysis (PCA), partial least-squares (PLS) and reduced-rank regressions (RRR) in determining dietary patterns associated with bone mass. METHODS: Data from 1182 study participants (45.9% males; aged 50 years and above) from the North West Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS) were used. Dietary data were collected using a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Dietary patterns were constructed using PCA, PLS and RRR and compared based on the performance to identify plausible patterns associated with bone mineral density (BMD) and content (BMC). RESULTS: PCA, PLS and RRR identified two, four and four dietary patterns, respectively. All methods identified similar patterns for the first two factors (factor 1, "prudent" and factor 2, "western" patterns). Three, one and none of the patterns derived by RRR, PLS and PCA were significantly associated with bone mass, respectively. The "prudent" and dairy (factor 3) patterns determined by RRR were positively and significantly associated with BMD and BMC. Vegetables and fruit pattern (factor 4) of PLS and RRR was negatively and significantly associated with BMD and BMC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RRR was found to be more appropriate in identifying more (plausible) dietary patterns that are associated with bone mass than PCA and PLS. Nevertheless, the advantage of RRR over the other two methods (PCA and PLS) should be confirmed in future studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ageing population; Bone mass; Dietary analysis methods; Partial least-squares regression; Principal component analysis; Reduced-rank regression
Authors: Ester Al de Jonge; Jessica C Kiefte-de Jong; Albert Hofman; André G Uitterlinden; Brenda Ct Kieboom; Trudy Voortman; Oscar H Franco; Fernando Rivadeneira Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ester A L de Jonge; Jessica C Kiefte-de Jong; Lisette C P G M de Groot; Trudy Voortman; Josje D Schoufour; M Carola Zillikens; Albert Hofman; André G Uitterlinden; Oscar H Franco; Fernando Rivadeneira Journal: Nutrients Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Dongqing Wang; Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez; Elizabeth A Jackson; Michael R Elliott; Bradley M Appelhans; Emma Barinas-Mitchell; Lawrence F Bielak; Mei-Hua Huang; Ana Baylin Journal: J Nutr Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Jason D Morgenstern; Laura C Rosella; Andrew P Costa; Russell J de Souza; Laura N Anderson Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 8.701