Strategies to Address Misestimation of Energy Intake Based on Self-Report Dietary Consumption in Examining Associations Between Dietary Patterns and Cancer Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the influence of strategies of handling misestimation of energy intake (EI) on observed associations between dietary patterns and cancer risk. Data from Alberta’s Tomorrow Project participants (n = 9,847 men and 16,241 women) were linked to the Alberta Cancer Registry. The revised-Goldberg method was used to characterize EI misestimation. Four strategies assessed the influence of EI misestimation: Retaining individuals with EI misestimation in the cluster analysis (Inclusion), excluding before (ExBefore) or after cluster analysis (ExAfter), or reassigning into ExBefore clusters using the nearest neighbor method (InclusionNN). Misestimation of EI affected approximately 50% of participants. Cluster analysis identified three patterns: Healthy, Meats/Pizza and Sweets/Dairy. Cox proportional hazard regression models assessed associations between the risk of cancer and dietary patterns. Among men, no significant associations (based on an often-used threshold of p < 0.05) between dietary patterns and cancer risk were observed. In women, significant associations were observed between the Sweets/Dairy and Meats/Pizza patterns and all cancer risk in the ExBefore (HR (95% CI): 1.28 (1.04–1.58)) and InclusionNN (HR (95% CI): 1.14 (1.00–1.30)), respectively. Thus, strategies to address misestimation of EI can influence associations between dietary patterns and disease outcomes. Identifying optimal approaches for addressing EI misestimation, for example, by leveraging biomarker-based studies could improve our ability to characterize diet-disease associations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".