Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology ((AEMB,volume 445))

Abstract

This chapter reviews work of Carroll, Freedman, Kipnis, and Li (1998) on the statistical analysis of the relationship between dietary intake and health outcomes. In the area of nutritional epidemiology, there is some evidence from biomarker studies that the usual statistical model for dietary measurements may break down due to two causes: (a) systematic biases depending on a person’s body mass index; and (b) an additional random component of bias, so that the error structure is the same as a one-way random effects model. We investigate this problem, in the context of (1) the estimation of the distribution of usual nutrient intake; (2) estimating the correlation between a nutrient instrument and usual nutrient intake; and (3) estimating the true relative risk from an estimated relative risk using the error-prone covariate. While systematic bias due to body mass index appears to have little effect, the additional random effect in the variance structure is shown to have a potentially important impact on overall results, both on corrections for relative risk estimates and in estimating the distribution usual of nutrient intake. Our results point to a need for new experiments aimed at estimation of a crucial parameter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Carroll RJ; Freedman LS; Kipnis V; Li L. A new class of measurement error models, with application to dietary intake data. Can J Stat, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman LS; Carroll RJ; Wax Y. Estimating the relationship between dietary intake obtained from a food frequency questionnaire and true average intake. Am J Epi, 1991, 134:510–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller WA. Measurement Error Models. John Wiley & Sons: New York. 1987.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson MM; Kushi LH; Thompson DJ; et al. Feasibility of a randomized trial of a low-fat diet for the prevention of breast cancer: Dietary compliance in the Women’s Health Trial Vanguard Study. Prev Med, 1990, 19:115–133.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter DJ; Spiegelman D; Adami H-O; Beeson L; van der Brandt PA; Folsom AR; Fraser GE; Goldbohm A; Graham S; Howe GR; Kushi LH; Marshall JR; McDermott A; Miller AB; Speizer FE; Wolk A; Yaun SS; Willett W. Cohort studies of fat intake and the risk of breast cancer — A pooled analysis. NEJM, 1996, 334:356–361.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston ME; Prentice AM; Strain JJ; Coward WA; Barker AE; McKenna PG; Whitehead RJ. Accuracy of weighted dietary records in studies of diet and health. Brit Med J, 1990, 300:708–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin LJ; Su W; Jones PJ; Lockwood GA; Tritchler DL; Boyd NF. Comparison of energy intakes determined by food records and doubly-labeled water in women participating in a dietary intervention trial. Am J Clin Nut, 1996, 63:483–490.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mertz W; Tsui JC; Judd JT; Reiser S; Hallfrisch J; Morris ER; Steele PD; Lashley E. What are people really eating: The relation between energy intake derived from estimated diet records and intake determined to maintain body weight. Am J Clin Nut, 1991, 54:291–295.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice RL. Dietary fat and breast cancer: Measurement error and results from analytic epidemiology. Nat Canc Inst, 1996, 88:1738–1747.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosner BA; Willett WC; Spiegelman D. Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within—person measurement error. Statistics, 1989, 8:1051–1070.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sawaya AL; Tucker K; Tsay R; Willett W; Saltzman E; Dallai GE; Roberts SB. Evaluation of four methods for determining energy intake in young and older women: Comparison with doubly-labeled water measurements of total energy expenditure. Am J Clin Nut, 1996, 63-491–499.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Carroll, R.J., Freedman, L.S., Kipnis, V. (1998). Measurement Error and Dietary Intake. In: Clifford, A.J., MĂĽller, HG. (eds) Mathematical Modeling in Experimental Nutrition. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 445. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1959-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1959-5_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-1961-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-1959-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics