CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,085Nutritional Studies and DietFatty Acid Research and HealthCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dietary Fat and Coronary Heart Disease: A Comparison of Approaches for Adjusting for Total Energy Intake and Modeling Repeated Dietary Measurements

Open access
Hu, F. B., Stampfer, M. J., Rimm, E., Ascherio, A., Rosner, B. A., Spiegelman, D., Willett, W. C.·1999·American Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009849
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Previous cohort studies of fat intake and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) have been inconsistent, probably due in part to methodological differences and various limitations, including inadequate dietary assessment and incomplete adjustment for total energy intake. The authors analyzed repeated assessment of diet from the Nurses' Health Study to examine the associations between intakes of four major types of fat (saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and trans fats) and risk of CHD during 14 years of follow-up (1980-1994) by using alternative methods for energy adjustment. In particular, the authors compared four risk models for energy adjustment: the standard multivariate model, the energy-partition model, the nutrient residual model, and the multivariate nutrient density model. Within each model, the authors compared four different approaches for analyzing repeated dietary measurements: baseline diet only, the most recent diet, and two different algorithms for calculating cumulative average diets. The substantive results were consistent across all models; that is, higher intakes of saturated and trans fats were associated with increased risk of CHD, while higher intakes of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats were associated with reduced risk. When nutrients were considered as continuous variables, the four energy-adjustment methods yielded similar associationS. However, the interpretation of the relative risks differed across models. In addition, within each model, the methods using the cumulative averages in general yielded stronger associations than did those using either only baseline diet or the most recent diet. When the nutrients were categorized according to quintiles, the residual and the nutrient density models, which gave similar results, yielded statistically more significant tests for linear trend than did the standard and the partition models.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009849

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hu, F. B., Stampfer, M. J., Rimm, E., Ascherio, A., Rosner, B. A., Spiegelman, D., & Willett, W. C.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Hu, F. B.
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1999-03-15
Volume
149
Issue
6
Pages
531-540
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
DOI
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009849
OpenAlex
W2171753645
Cited by
1,085
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 50
FWCI
22.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL24074, HL34594, R01HL034594)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA-40356)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Keywords
dietary fat, coronary artery disease, saturated fat, trans fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fat, energy adjustment, Nurses' Health Study, dietary assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Energy Intake, Coronary Disease, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Dietary Fats, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Risk, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Nutrition Assessment

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