Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 500

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A mixed‐effects model approach for estimating the distribution of usual intake of nutrients: The NCI method

Open access
Tooze, Janet A., Kipnis, Victor, Buckman, Dennis W., Carroll, Raymond J., Freedman, Laurence S., Guenther, Patricia M., Krebs‐Smith, Susan M., Subar, Amy F., Dodd, Kevin W.·2010·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

It is of interest to estimate the distribution of usual nutrient intake for a population from repeat 24‐h dietary recall assessments. A mixed effects model and quantile estimation procedure, developed at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), may be used for this purpose. The model incorporates a Box–Cox parameter and covariates to estimate usual daily intake of nutrients; model parameters are estimated via quasi‐Newton optimization of a likelihood approximated by the adaptive Gaussian quadrature. The parameter estimates are used in a Monte Carlo approach to generate empirical quantiles; standard errors are estimated by bootstrap. The NCI method is illustrated and compared with current estimation methods, including the individual mean and the semi‐parametric method developed at the Iowa State University (ISU), using data from a random sample and computer simulations. Both the NCI and ISU methods for nutrients are superior to the distribution of individual means. For simple (no covariate) models, quantile estimates are similar between the NCI and ISU methods. The bootstrap approach used by the NCI method to estimate standard errors of quantiles appears preferable to Taylor linearization. One major advantage of the NCI method is its ability to provide estimates for subpopulations through the incorporation of covariates into the model. The NCI method may be used for estimating the distribution of usual nutrient intake for populations and subpopulations as part of a unified framework of estimation of usual intake of dietary constituents. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.4063

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 500

Metadata

Authors
Tooze, J. A., Kipnis, V., Buckman, D. W., Carroll, R. J., Freedman, L. S., Guenther, P. M., Krebs‐Smith, S. M., Subar, A. F., & Dodd, K. W.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09-22
Volume
29
Issue
27
Pages
2857-2868
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2146705008
Cited by
500
References
0
FWCI
15.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A mixed‐effects model approach for estimating the distribution of usual intake of nutrients: The NCI method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.4063
The paper
Tooze, J. A., Kipnis, V., Buckman, D. W., Carroll, R. J., Freedman, L. S., Guenther, P. M., Krebs‐Smith, S. M., Subar, A. F., & Dodd, K. W. (2010). A mixed‐effects model approach for estimating the distribution of usual intake of nutrients: The NCI method. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4063

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.