Cited by 20Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyNutritional Studies and DietNutrition and Health Studies

Diet and health risk: risk patterns and disease-specific associations

Open access
Marshall, James R, Chen, Zhao·1999·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Whether such epidemiologic descriptors as relative risk, dose response, and threshold points convey meaningful information is often the subject of debate. Thus, using these descriptors to juxtapose the many disease-specific effects of nutritional exposures becomes problematic. In this article it is argued that epidemiologic patterns of disease-exposure associations must be interpreted in light of the profound imprecision of exposure assessment that characterizes nutritional epidemiology. In general, this imprecision leads to substantial attenuation of disease-exposure associations, such that relative risk, dose response, and the extent to which there are thresholds in disease-exposure associations can be seriously underestimated. Linking disease-specific relative risks, especially when derived from different studies with different methods of assessing exposure, is made increasingly difficult. The most critical tasks for lessening bias in these epidemiologic descriptors are first, to lessen imprecision in measuring exposures, and second, to adjust association estimates for attenuation due to measurement imprecision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajcn/69.6.1351s

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Misclassification of subjects by dietary intake can influence observed associations between dietary exposures and disease outcomes and underlies inconsistencies in nutritional epidemiology.

    “The resulting misclassification of subjects, especially when sorting them according to dietary intake, can influence observed associations between dietary exposures and disease outcomes and underlies inconsistencies in published findings in the field of nutritional epidemiology (12).”

    From The food metabolome: a window over dietary exposure (2014) · cites this paper as [12]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marshall, J. R., & Chen, Z.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Marshall, James R
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-06
Volume
69
Issue
6
Pages
1351S-1356S
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110714883
Cited by
20
References
22
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutrition and Health Studies
Keywords
measurement error, attenuation bias, relative risk, dose-response relationship, threshold effects, nutritional epidemiology
MeSH terms
Diet, Disease, Epidemiologic Methods, Epidemiology, Humans, Risk, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence

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