Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of Recovery Biomarkers to Calibrate Nutrient Consumption Self-Reports in the Women's Health Initiative

Neuhouser, M. L., Tinker, L., Shaw, P. A., Schoeller, D., Bingham, S. A., Horn, L. V., Beresford, S. A. A., Caan, B., Thomson, C., Satterfield, S., Kuller, L., Heiss, G., Smit, E., Sarto, G., Ockene, J., Stefanick, M. L., Assaf, A., Runswick, S., Prentice, R. L.·2008·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Underreporting of energy consumption by self-report is well-recognized, but previous studies using recovery biomarkers have not been sufficiently large to establish whether participant characteristics predict misreporting. In 2004-2005, 544 participants in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial completed a doubly labeled water protocol (energy biomarker), 24-hour urine collection (protein biomarker), and self-reports of diet (assessed by food frequency questionnaire (FFQ)), exercise, and lifestyle habits; 111 women repeated all procedures after 6 months. Using linear regression, the authors estimated associations of participant characteristics with misreporting, defined as the extent to which the log ratio (self-reported FFQ/nutritional biomarker) was less than zero. Intervention women in the trial underreported energy intake by 32% (vs. 27% in the comparison arm) and protein intake by 15% (vs. 10%). Younger women had more underreporting of energy (p = 0.02) and protein (p = 0.001), while increasing body mass index predicted increased underreporting of energy and overreporting of percentage of energy derived from protein (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Blacks and Hispanics underreported more than did Caucasians. Correlations of initial measures with repeat measures (n = 111) were 0.72, 0.70, 0.46, and 0.64 for biomarker energy, FFQ energy, biomarker protein, and FFQ protein, respectively. Recovery biomarker data were used in regression equations to calibrate self-reports; the potential application of these equations to disease risk modeling is presented. The authors confirm the existence of systematic bias in dietary self-reports and provide methods of correcting for measurement error.

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 · 10.1093/aje/kwn026

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
Neuhouser, M. L., Tinker, L., Shaw, P. A., Schoeller, D., Bingham, S. A., Horn, L. V., Beresford, S. A. A., Caan, B., Thomson, C., Satterfield, S., Kuller, L., Heiss, G., Smit, E., Sarto, G., Ockene, J., Stefanick, M. L., Assaf, A., Runswick, S., & Prentice, R. L.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2008-03-14
Volume
167
Issue
10
Pages
1247-1259
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2140239112
Cited by
354
References
1
FWCI
20.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.