Cited by 98

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study

Khandpur, Neha, Rossato, Sinara, Drouin-Chartier, Jean-Philippe, Du, Mengxi, Steele, Euridice M., Sampson, Laura, Monteiro, Carlos, Zhang, Fang F., Willett, Walter, Fung, Teresa T., Sun, Qi·2021·Journal of Nutritional Science

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

This manuscript details the strategy employed for categorising food items based on their processing levels into the four NOVA groups. Semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS) I and II, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Growing Up Today Studies (GUTS) I and II cohorts were used. The four-stage approach included: (i) the creation of a complete food list from the FFQs; (ii) assignment of food items to a NOVA group by three researchers; (iii) checking for consensus in categorisation and shortlisting discordant food items; (iv) discussions with experts and use of additional resources (research dieticians, cohort-specific documents, online grocery store scans) to guide the final categorisation of the short-listed items. At stage 1, 205 and 315 food items were compiled from the NHS and HPFS, and the GUTS FFQs, respectively. Over 70 % of food items from all cohorts were assigned to a NOVA group after stage 2. The remainder were shortlisted for further discussion (stage 3). After two rounds of reviews at stage 4, 95⋅6 % of food items (NHS + HPFS) and 90⋅7 % items (GUTS) were categorised. The remaining products were assigned to a non-ultra-processed food group (primary categorisation) and flagged for sensitivity analyses at which point they would be categorised as ultra-processed. Of all items in the food lists, 36⋅1 % in the NHS and HPFS cohorts and 43⋅5 % in the GUTS cohorts were identified as ultra-processed. Future work is needed to validate this approach. Documentation and discussions of alternative approaches for categorisation are encouraged.

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 · 10.1017/jns.2021.72

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The definitions and examples provided by the Nova system are adequate in classifying more than 70% of the food items reported in food frequency questionnaires from various cohorts from the US.

    “with the definitions and examples provided by the Nova system deemed adequate in classifying more than 70% of the food items reported in food frequency questionnaires from various cohorts from the US,99”

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303348 · DOI
  2. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199754038.001.0001 · DOI
  3. 10.1006/pmed.1997.0200 · DOI
  4. Monge, 2020, Ultra-processed beverages and processed meats increase the incidence of hypertension in Mexican women, Br J Nutr, 126, 1
  5. 10.1017/S1368980018000861 · DOI
  6. Lane, 2020, Ultraprocessed food and chronic noncommunicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 observational studies, Obes Rev, 22
  7. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303338 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116211 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1017/S1368980012000079 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/s41430-017-0044-3 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/ijc.2910580604 · DOI
  12. 10.1017/S0007114520005176 · DOI
  13. Pagliai, 2020, Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Br J Nutr, 3, 1
  14. 21. Romieu, X , Khandpur, N , Katsikari, A , Consumption of industrial processed foods and risk of premenopausal breast cancer among Latin American women: the PRECAMA study. Under review at Cancer Causes and Control.
  15. 2015, Guidelines on the Collection of Information on Food Processing Through Food Consumption Surveys
  16. 10.3945/ajcn.116.135004 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1093/aje/154.12.1089 · DOI
  18. 10.1590/S0036-36341998000200005 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/S0002-8223(95)00086-0 · DOI
  20. Srour, 2019, Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé), Br Med J, 365
  21. Costa, 2020, Role of ultra-processed food in fat mass index between 6 and 11 years of age: a cohort study, Int J Epi, 50
  22. 10.1093/ajcn/59.1.171S · DOI
  23. 10.1038/s41387-018-0043-z · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Khandpur, N., Rossato, S., Drouin-Chartier, J.-P., Du, M., Steele, E. M., Sampson, L., Monteiro, C., Zhang, F. F., Willett, W., Fung, T. T., & Sun, Q.
Venue
Journal of Nutritional Science
Published
2021
Volume
10
ISSN
2048-6790
Cited by
98
References
4
Language
en

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