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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Addressing Current Criticism Regarding the Value of Self-Report Dietary Data
Subar, A. F., Freedman, L. S., Tooze, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. I., Boushey, C., Neuhouser, M. L., Thompson, F. E., Potischman, N., Guenther, P. M., Tarasuk, V., et al. (2015) · The Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.3945/jn.115.219634 · Cited by 1,047
Self-citationSrour, B., Fezeu, L. K., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Méjean, C., Andrianasolo, R. M., Chazelas, E., Deschasaux, M., Hercberg, S., Galan, P., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l1451 · Cited by 955
Levine, M. E., Suarez, J. A., Brandhorst, S., Balasubramanian, P., Cheng, C.-W., Madia, F., Fontana, L., Mirisola, M. G., Guevara-Aguirre, J., Wan, J., et al. (2014) · Cell Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2014.02.006 · Cited by 910
Freedman, L. S., Commins, J. M., Moler, J. E., Arab, L., Baer, D. J., Kipnis, V., Midthune, D., Moshfegh, A. J., Neuhouser, M. L., Prentice, R. L., et al. (2014) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwu116 · Cited by 528
Self-citationPark, Y., Dodd, K. W., Kipnis, V., Thompson, F. E., Potischman, N., Schoeller, D. A., Baer, D. J., Midthune, D., Troiano, R. P., Bowles, H., et al. (2018) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqx002 · Cited by 367
Self-citation
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.