Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation and Comparison of Food Records, Recalls, and Frequencies for Energy and Protein Assessment by Using Recovery Biomarkers

Open access
Prentice, Ross L., Mossavar-Rahmani, Yasmin, Huang, Ying, Van Horn, Linda, Beresford, Shirley A. A., Caan, Bette, Tinker, Lesley, Schoeller, Dale, Bingham, Sheila, Eaton, Charles B., Thomson, Cynthia, Johnson, Karen C., Ockene, Judy, Sarto, Gloria, Heiss, Gerardo, Neuhouser, Marian L.·2011·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The food frequency questionnaire approach to dietary assessment is ubiquitous in nutritional epidemiology research. Food records and recalls provide approaches that may also be adaptable for use in large epidemiologic cohorts, if warranted by better measurement properties. The authors collected (2007-2009) a 4-day food record, three 24-hour dietary recalls, and a food frequency questionnaire from 450 postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative prospective cohort study (enrollment, 1994-1998), along with biomarkers of energy and protein consumption. Through comparison with biomarkers, the food record is shown to provide a stronger estimate of energy and protein than does the food frequency questionnaire, with 24-hour recalls mostly intermediate. Differences were smaller and nonsignificant for protein density. Food frequencies, records, and recalls were, respectively, able to "explain" 3.8%, 7.8%, and 2.8% of biomarker variation for energy; 8.4%, 22.6%, and 16.2% of biomarker variation for protein; and 6.5%, 11.0%, and 7.0% of biomarker variation for protein density. However, calibration equations that include body mass index, age, and ethnicity substantially improve these numbers to 41.7%, 44.7%, and 42.1% for energy; 20.3%, 32.7%, and 28.4% for protein; and 8.7%, 14.4%, and 10.4% for protein density. Calibration equations using any of the assessment procedures may yield suitable consumption estimates for epidemiologic study purposes.

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/kwr140

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 375

Metadata

Authors
Prentice, R. L., Mossavar-Rahmani, Y., Huang, Y., Van Horn, L., Beresford, S. A. A., Caan, B., Tinker, L., Schoeller, D., Bingham, S., Eaton, C. B., Thomson, C., Johnson, K. C., Ockene, J., Sarto, G., Heiss, G., & Neuhouser, M. L.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2011-07-15
Volume
174
Issue
5
Pages
591-603
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2170305412
Cited by
375
References
0
FWCI
13.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Evaluation and Comparison of Food Records, Recalls, and Frequencies for Energy and Protein Assessment by Using Recovery Biomarkers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/aje/kwr140
The paper
Prentice, R. L., Mossavar-Rahmani, Y., Huang, Y., Van Horn, L., Beresford, S. A. A., Caan, B., Tinker, L., Schoeller, D., Bingham, S., Eaton, C. B., Thomson, C., Johnson, K. C., Ockene, J., Sarto, G., Heiss, G., & Neuhouser, M. L. (2011). Evaluation and Comparison of Food Records, Recalls, and Frequencies for Energy and Protein Assessment by Using Recovery Biomarkers. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr140

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.