Cited by 18

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association between ultra-processed food and flavonoid intakes in a nationally representative sample of the US population

Leitão, Alice Erwig, Roschel, Hamilton, Oliveira-Júnior, Gersiel, Genario, Rafael, Franco, Tathiane, Monteiro, Carlos Augusto, Martinez-Steele, Euridice·2024·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

Consumption of ultra-processed food (UPF) has been associated with several chronic diseases and poor diet quality. It is reasonable to speculate that the consumption of UPF negatively associates with flavonoid dietary intake; however, this assumption has not been previously examined. The present study aims to assess association between the dietary contribution of UPF and flavonoid intake in the US population aged 0 years and above. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of dietary data collected by 24-h recalls from 7640 participants participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017–2018. Foods were classified according to the Nova classification system. The updated US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Database for the Flavonoid Content of Selected Foods (Release 3.3) database was used to estimate total and six classes of flavonoid intakes. Flavonoid intakes were compared across quintiles of dietary contribution of UPF (% of total energy intake) using linear regression models. The total and five out of six class flavonoid intakes decreased between 50 and 70 % across extreme quintiles of the dietary contribution of UPF (Pfor linear trend < 0·001); only isoflavones increased by over 260 %. Our findings suggest that consumption of UPF is associated with lower total and five of six class flavonoid intakes and with higher isoflavone intakes, supporting previous evidence of the negative impact of UPF consumption on the overall quality of the diet and health outcomes.

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/s0007114523002568

Cites

3 of 3 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?

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

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 10.1016/j.fct.2013.05.006 · DOI
  2. 10.3390/nu9030209 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.3390/nu13124410 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.jfca.2017.07.016 · DOI
  5. 10.1038/s41416-022-01749-y · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.npep.2013.06.001 · DOI
  7. 10.1093/ajh/hpac069 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1007/s00394-019-01970-1 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.08.014 · DOI
  10. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4397 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.3945/jn.115.219634 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.3945/ajcn.116.136051 · DOI
  13. 10.3390/molecules26134021 · DOI
  14. 10.3945/jn.114.191007 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.10.009 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.11.047 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/bs.afnr.2019.02.012 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/aje/kwu467 · DOI
  19. 10.5650/jos.ess15181 · DOI
  20. 10.3390/antiox8020035 · DOI
  21. Suksatan, 2022, Ultra-processed food consumption and adult mortality risk: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of 207, Nutrients, 14, 1
  22. 10.1017/S0007114520002688 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1016/j.numecd.2022.08.018 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.3390/molecules24061076 · DOI
  25. Harrell, 2020, Regression modeling strategies, Biostat Biomed Res, 45, 170
  26. 10.1002/mnfr.202001019 · DOI
  27. 10.1097/gme.0b013e3182410159 · DOI
  28. 10.1017/S0007114510003910 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.3390/molecules26102959 · DOI
  30. 10.1038/s41366-020-00650-z · DOI
  31. 10.3390/nu14091924 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.tjnut.2022.09.001 · DOI
  33. Akinbami, 2022, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2017–March 2020 prepandemic file: sample design, estimation, and analytic guidelines, Vital Heal Stat Ser 2 Data Eval Methods Res, 2022, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 18

Metadata

Authors
Leitão, A. E., Roschel, H., Oliveira-Júnior, G., Genario, R., Franco, T., Monteiro, C. A., & Martinez-Steele, E.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2023-11-08
Volume
131
Issue
6
Pages
1074-1083
ISSN
  • 0007-1145
  • 1475-2662
Cited by
18
References
3
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