↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Two Methods – Regression Predictive Model and Intake Shift Model – For Adjusting Self-Reported Dietary Recall of Total Energy Intake of Populations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Two Methods – Regression Predictive Model and Intake Shift Model – For Adjusting Self-Reported Dietary Recall of Total Energy Intake of Populations
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Lankester, Sharon Perry, Julie Parsonnet

Abstract

Daily dietary intake data derived from self-reported dietary recall surveys are widely considered inaccurate. In this study, methods were developed for adjusting these dietary recalls to more plausible values. In a simulation model of two National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), NHANES I and NHANES 2007-2008, a predicted one-third of raw data fell outside a range of physiologically plausible bounds for dietary intake (designated a 33% failure rate baseline). To explore the nature and magnitude of this bias, primary data obtained from an observational study were used to derive models that predicted more plausible dietary intake. Two models were then applied for correcting dietary recall bias in the NHANES datasets: (a) a linear regression to model percent under-reporting as a function of subject characteristics and (b) a shift of dietary intake reports to align with experimental data on energy expenditure. After adjustment, the failure rates improved to <2% with the regression model and 4-9% with the intake shift model - both substantial improvements over the raw data. Both methods gave more reliable estimates of plausible dietary intake based on dietary recall and have the potential for more far-reaching application in correction of self-reported exposures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Other 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 2 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,384,336
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,629
of 9,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,069
of 361,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#50
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.