Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 423

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

A comparison of a food frequency questionnaire with a 24-hour recall for use in an epidemiological cohort study: results from the biomarker-based Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) study

Schatzkin, Arthur, Kipnis, Victor, Carroll, Raymond J, Midthune, Douglas, Subar, Amy F, Bingham, Sheila, Schoeller, Dale A, Troiano, Richard P, Freedman, Laurence S·2003·International Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/ije/dyg264
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most large cohort studies have used a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) for assessing dietary intake. Several biomarker studies, however, have cast doubt on whether the FFQ has sufficient precision to allow detection of moderate but important diet-disease associations. We use data from the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) study to compare the performance of a FFQ with that of a 24-hour recall (24HR). METHODS: The OPEN study included 484 healthy volunteer participants (261 men, 223 women) from Montgomery County, Maryland, aged 40-69. Each participant was asked to complete a FFQ and 24HR on two occasions 3 months apart, and a doubly labelled water (DLW) assessment and two 24-hour urine collections during the 2 weeks after the first FFQ and 24HR assessment. For both the FFQ and 24HR and for both men and women, we calculated attenuation factors for absolute energy, absolute protein, and protein density. RESULTS: For absolute energy and protein, a single FFQ's attenuation factor is 0.04-0.16. Repeat administrations lead to little improvement (0.08-0.19). Attenuation factors for a single 24HR are 0.10-0.20, but four repeats would yield attenuations of 0.20-0.37. For protein density a single FFQ has an attenuation of 0.3-0.4; for a single 24HR the attenuation factor is 0.15-0.25 but would increase to 0.35-0.50 with four repeats. CONCLUSIONS: Because of severe attenuation, the FFQ cannot be recommended as an instrument for evaluating relations between absolute intake of energy or protein and disease. Although this attenuation is lessened in analyses of energy-adjusted protein, it remains substantial for both FFQ and multiple 24HR. The utility of either of these instruments for detecting important but moderate relative risks (between 1.5 and 2.0), even for energy-adjusted dietary factors, is questionable.

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/ije/dyg264

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Schatzkin, A., Kipnis, V., Carroll, R. J., Midthune, D., Subar, A. F., Bingham, S., Schoeller, D. A., Troiano, R. P., & Freedman, L. S.
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2003-12
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
1054-1062
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
DOI
10.1093/ije/dyg264
OpenAlex
W2162178058
Cited by
423
References
1
FWCI
8.57
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.