Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 223

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and evaluation of the national cancer institute’s dietary screener questionnaire scoring algorithms

Thompson, Frances E, Midthune, Douglas, Kahle, Lisa, Dodd, Kevin W·2017·The Journal of Nutrition

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 · 10.3945/jn.116.246058

Cites

2 of 2 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

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?

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 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Thompson, 1994, Dietary assessment resource manual, J Nutr, 124, 2245S, 10.1093/jn/124.suppl_11.2245s · DOI · Paper page
  2. Thompson, 2002, Fruit and vegetable assessment: performance of 2 new short instruments and a food frequency questionnaire, J Am Diet Assoc, 102, 1764, 10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90379-2 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Thompson, 2004, Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre, Public Health Nutr, 7, 1097, 10.1079/PHN2004642 · DOI
  4. Bogle, 2001, Validity of a telephone-administered 24-hour dietary recall in telephone and non-telephone households in the rural Lower Mississippi Delta region, J Am Diet Assoc, 101, 216, 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00056-6 · DOI
  5. Godwin, 2004, Accuracy of reporting dietary intake using various portion-size aids in-person and via telephone, J Am Diet Assoc, 104, 585, 10.1016/j.jada.2004.01.006 · DOI
  6. Thompson, 2005, Dietary intake estimates in the National Health Interview Survey, 2000: methodology, results, and interpretation, J Am Diet Assoc, 105, 352, 10.1016/j.jada.2004.12.032 · DOI
  7. Thompson, 2007, Development and evaluation of a short instrument to estimate usual dietary intake of percentage energy from fat, J Am Diet Assoc, 107, 760, 10.1016/j.jada.2007.02.006 · DOI
  8. Moore, 2015, Using behavioral risk factor surveillance system data to estimate the percentage of the population meeting US Department of Agriculture food patterns fruit and vegetable intake recommendations, Am J Epidemiol, 181, 979, 10.1093/aje/kwu461 · DOI
  9. Tooze, 2006, A new statistical method for estimating the usual intake of episodically consumed foods with application to their distribution, J Am Diet Assoc, 106, 1575, 10.1016/j.jada.2006.07.003 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Tooze, 2010, A mixed-effects model approach for estimating the distribution of usual intake of nutrients: the NCI method, Stat Med, 29, 2857, 10.1002/sim.4063 · DOI · Paper page
  11. McCarthy, 1976, The use of balanced half-sample replication in cross-validation studies, J Am Stat Assoc, 71, 596, 10.1080/01621459.1976.10481534 · DOI
  12. Subar, 2001, Comparative validation of the Block, Willett, and National Cancer Institute food frequency questionnaires: the Eating at America's Table Study, Am J Epidemiol, 154, 1089, 10.1093/aje/154.12.1089 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Subar, 2003, Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: the OPEN study, Am J Epidemiol, 158, 1, 10.1093/aje/kwg092 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Thompson, 2009, Interrelationships of added sugars intake, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity in adults in the United States: National Health Interview Survey, 2005, J Am Diet Assoc, 109, 1376, 10.1016/j.jada.2009.05.002 · DOI
  15. Park, 2016, Sociodemographic and behavioral factors associated with added sugars intake among US adults, J Acad Nutr Diet, 116, 1589, 10.1016/j.jand.2016.04.012 · DOI
  16. Coln-Ramos, 2009, Differences in fruit and vegetable intake among Hispanic subgroups in California: results from the 2005 California Health Interview Survey, J Am Diet Assoc, 109, 1878, 10.1016/j.jada.2009.08.015 · DOI
  17. Schatzkin, 2009, Observational epidemiologic studies of nutrition and cancer: the next generation (with better observation), Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 18, 1026, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-1129 · DOI
  18. Kirkpatrick, 2014, Performance of the automated self-administered 24-hour recall relative to a measure of true intakes and to an interviewer-administered 24-h recall, Am J Clin Nutr, 100, 233, 10.3945/ajcn.114.083238 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Thompson, 2015, Comparison of interviewer-administered and automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recalls in 3 diverse integrated health systems, Am J Epidemiol, 181, 970, 10.1093/aje/kwu467 · DOI
  20. Carroll, 2012, Taking advantage of the strengths of 2 different dietary assessment instruments to improve intake estimates for nutritional epidemiology, Am J Epidemiol, 175, 340, 10.1093/aje/kwr317 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Thompson, F. E., Midthune, D., Kahle, L., & Dodd, K. W.
Venue
The Journal of Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
147
Issue
6
Pages
1226-1233
ISSN
0022-3166
Cited by
223
References
2
Language
en
Licence

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.