Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T08:29:31.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Strength of the relationships between three self-reported dietary intake instruments and serum carotenoids: the Observing Energy and Protein Nutrition (OPEN) Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2012

Stephanie M George*
Affiliation:
Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd, EPN 4017A, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
Frances E Thompson
Affiliation:
Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd, EPN 4017A, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
Douglas Midthune
Affiliation:
Biometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
Amy F Subar
Affiliation:
Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd, EPN 4017A, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
David Berrigan
Affiliation:
Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd, EPN 4017A, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
Arthur Schatzkin
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
Nancy Potischman
Affiliation:
Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd, EPN 4017A, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email stephanie.george@nih.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To assess the strength of the relationships between serum carotenoids and three self-reported dietary intake instruments often used to characterize carotenoid intake in studies of diet and disease.

Design

Participants completed a Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ), two 24 h dietary recalls (24HR), a fruit and vegetable screener and a fasting blood draw. We derived dietary intake estimates of α-carotene, β-carotene, cryptoxanthin, lutein, zeaxanthin and lycopene from each diet instrument and calculated sex-specific multivariate correlations between dietary intake estimates and their corresponding serum values.

Setting

Montgomery County, Maryland, USA.

Subjects

Four hundred and seventy women and men aged 40–69 years in the National Cancer Institute's Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study.

Results

Serum carotenoids correlated more strongly with the DHQ (r = 0·34–0·54 for women; r = 0·38–0·56 for men) than with the average of two recalls (r = 0·26–0·47 for women; r = 0·26–0·40 for men) with the exception of zeaxanthin, for which the correlations using recalls were higher. With adjustment for within-person variation, correlations between serum carotenoids and recalls were greatly improved (r = 0·38–0·83 for women; r = 0·42–0·74 for men). In most cases, correlations between serum carotenoids and the fruit and vegetable screener resembled serum–DHQ correlations.

Conclusions

Evidence from the study provides support for the use of the DHQ, a fruit and vegetable screener and deattenuated recalls for estimating carotenoid status in studies without serum measures, and draws attention to the importance of adjusting for intra-individual variability when using recalls to estimate carotenoid values.

Type
Research paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

A large body of literature has suggested that dietary patterns rich in fruits and vegetables, the main source of naturally occurring pigments with antioxidant capacity called carotenoids, are important for the prevention of CVD, diabetes and some cancers(1). In large population studies, the majority of data relating diet to individual risk of disease relies on self-report assessment methods(Reference Mayne2) such as the FFQ, which asks about habitual intake over the past 6 to 12 months, or the 24 h dietary recall (24HR), which inquires about intake of foods in the past day. However, self-report methods for assessing diet are prone to measurement error, and misclassification of exposures and covariates can create bias in estimates of diet–disease associations(Reference Bingham, Luben and Welch3Reference Schatzkin, Kipnis and Carroll6).

Blood carotenoid concentrations are thought to be useful biomarkers of fruit and vegetable intake. Due to a variety of factors that affect concentrations of carotenoids in the serum, such as the characteristics of foods, as well as host factors such as body size, gender, smoking status, cholesterol level and inter-individual variability in absorption, carotenoid concentrations cannot be directly translated to fruit and vegetable intake(Reference Rock7). Nevertheless, correlations with concentrations may provide some degree of face validity for carotenoid intake estimates from dietary assessment instruments.

Given the feasibility of using self-report measures in large studies, ongoing evaluation of how well our self-reported dietary measures compare with blood estimates of carotenoids is important for interpretation of results in studies examining carotenoid–disease associations(Reference Schatzkin and Kipnis8). Past validation studies of this kind have typically evaluated two self-report methods of assessment and the majority of these studies have been performed in relatively small subsamples. Among 470 women and men in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, we had the opportunity to evaluate the utility of various commonly used dietary instruments, and compared the correlations between self-reported intake of carotenoids estimated from an FFQ, recalls and a novel fruit and vegetable screener and their corresponding serum values. We also evaluated the impact of energy adjustment using doubly labelled water (DLW) v. estimates of energy intake from self-report measures.

Experimental methods

Sample and study design

OPEN was conducted by the NCI from September 1999 to March 2000. A complete description of the study can be found elsewhere(Reference Subar, Kipnis and Troiano9). The original purpose of OPEN was to assess dietary measurement error by comparing measurements obtained via self-reported dietary instruments with unbiased biomarkers of energy (DLW) and protein intake (urinary N) among 484 men and women. The current investigation was restricted to the 470 participants who completed a Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ; baseline visit), at least one of two recalls (baseline and third visits), a fruit and vegetable screener and a blood draw (second visit; see Fig. 1). The fourteen participants excluded from the analysis were slightly older and more overweight than the 470 who were included.

Fig. 1 Study flow and activities, the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, September 1999–March 2000

Measures

Diet History Questionnaire

In advance of the first visit, participants were mailed and asked to complete a DHQ, an FFQ developed and evaluated at the NCI(10). The DHQ was collected on the first day of the study. Participants reported their usual frequency of intake and portion size of 124 food items over the last 12 months. For forty-four of the foods, participants were asked about seasonal intake, food type (e.g. low fat, lean, diet, caffeine free) and/or fat uses or additions. The DHQ also featured six additional questions about use of low-fat foods, four summary questions, and ten dietary supplement questions, including one on the dose and frequency of β-carotene supplement intake.

Each food item in the DHQ includes values of fruits and vegetables in pyramid servings (PYR) based on US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data(11). One PYR of fruit was equivalent to 1 whole fruit, cup of chopped fruit or cup of fruit juice. One PYR of vegetables was equivalent to 1 cup of raw, leafy vegetables, cup of other vegetables or cup of vegetable juice(11). Potatoes were not included in the calculation of vegetable intake. Although fruit and vegetable intake recommendations now use the standard unit of a cup (http://www.choosemyplate.org) instead of a PYR, the rankings of participants’ fruit and vegetable intake are not expected to differ between methods(Reference Nöthlings, Murphy and Sharma12).

To obtain dietary carotenoid values from DHQ fruit and vegetable intake data, we matched food codes from the 1994–96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) to similar foods in the nutrient database of the Nutrition Data Systems for Research (NDS-R) from the University of Minnesota (Nutrition Coordinating Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA)(Reference Dixon, Zimmerman and Kahle13, Reference Subar, Midthune and Kulldorff14).

24 h dietary recalls

Participants completed highly standardized recalls utilizing the five-pass method, developed by the USDA for use in national dietary surveillance(Reference Moshfegh, Raper and Ingwersen15). At the baseline (first day) and third (days 102–105) visits, trained interviewers administered recalls in-person to participants. Participants were asked about their food and supplement intake from midnight to midnight the previous day, as in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Similar to the DHQ, the 24HR probed for specific dose for β-carotene supplements. To calculate carotenoid values, the 24HR data were coded and linked to a nutrient database, the Food Intake Analysis System version 3·99 (Health Science Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA), which obtained its database from updates to CSFII(Reference Tippett and Cypel16).

Fruit and vegetable screener

At the second visit (day 12, 13, 14 or 15), participants completed a Multifactor Screener(Reference Thompson, Midthune and Subar17), a seventeen-item dietary instrument which asked frequency of intake of seven fruit and vegetable food groups in the past month (see Appendix). CSFII data were used to generate sex/age-specific portion sizes of fruit and vegetable intake in PYR and assign dietary carotenoid values in micrograms (μg/PYR). The Multifactorial Screener was developed using national data and its fruit and vegetable component was strongly correlated with estimated true intake in the OPEN study, at about 0·6–0·7 among men and 0·5–0·8 among women(Reference Thompson, Midthune and Subar17).

Serum

Blood specimens were collected for all participants at the second visit (day 12, 13, 14 or 15) and were processed and stored at −80°C until thawed for laboratory analysis. Samples were sent to Craft Technologies (Wilson, NC, USA) for analyses of carotenoids by HPLC. The laboratory provided results for α-carotene, cis- and trans-β-carotene, cis- and trans-β-cryptoxanthin, lutein, zeaxanthin, and cis- and trans-lycopene. Northwest Lipid Metabolism and Diabetes Research Laboratories (Seattle, WA, USA) performed the lipid analyses and reported results for cholesterol and TAG. For both carotenoid and lipid analyses, we inserted 10 % blind quality control samples to monitor performance of the laboratory assays in each batch of study participants’ samples.

The CV for external quality control samples were acceptable for most of the carotenoids and the lipids (CV (%): 4·9 for trans-β-carotene; 8·9 for α-cryptoxanthin; 7·8 for β-cryptoxanthin; 3·0 for lutein; 6·5 for zeaxanthin; 3·4 for trans-lycopene; 4·7 for cis-lycopene; 5·9 for cholesterol; 3·8 for TAG). The CV for α-carotene (13·2 %) was higher than for most other carotenoids, likely due to low concentrations in the blood. Given its quality control results, we chose to not include cis-β-carotene in our analyses (CV = 27·5 %).

Doubly labelled water

Total energy expenditure was measured by DLW. The DLW studies are described in detail elsewhere(Reference Scholler18). Briefly, we used a five-specimen protocol, with total body water measured by the plateau method(Reference Racette, Schoeller and Luke19). At the baseline visit (day 1), DLW was given orally at a dose of approximately 0·12 g of 10 atom% 18O-labelled water and 0·12 g of 99·9 % 2H-labelled water per kilogram of estimated total body water along with a subsequent 50 ml water rinse of the dose bottle(Reference Scholler18). After consuming nothing for 1 h, participants were then allowed to consume 200–400 ml of juice, a liquid replacement meal, or coffee during the next 2 h(Reference Scholler18). Volume of liquids consumed and time of consumption were recorded. Urine specimens were collected at 2, 3 and 4 h after the dose. The 2 h specimen was discarded. Total energy expenditure was calculated according to Racette et al.(Reference Racette, Schoeller and Luke19) and by using the modified Weir equation, assuming a respiratory quotient of 0·86.

Other covariates

Age, race/ethnicity and education level were obtained in advance of the baseline visit from the telephone screening interview. At the baseline visit (day 1), trained staff measured participants’ weight and height while they were wearing light indoor clothing and no shoes. All measurements were performed twice and averaged for a final value. If weight measurements differed by 0·3 kg or height measurements differed by 0·5 cm or more, then a third measurement was taken and used for final weight and height values. BMI was calculated as kg/m2. For the DHQ and fruit and vegetable screener, energy was estimated from the DHQ, while for the 24HR, energy was estimated from the average of two recalls.

Statistical analysis

We chose to present all data stratified by sex, because of past evidence showing under-reporting is more common among women than men(Reference Briefel, Sempos and McDowell20Reference Price, Paul and Cole26). All analyses were executed using the SAS statistical software package version 9·1·3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Geometric means and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for log-transformed serum and dietary carotenoid estimates and TAG. Means were reported for cholesterol due to its normal distribution.

Sex-specific energy-adjusted and multivariate-adjusted Spearman correlations between serum carotenoids and dietary carotenoids from the DHQ, average of the recalls and fruit and vegetable screener were performed using the PROC CORR procedure. For the recalls, we also calculated multivariate-adjusted sex-specific Pearson correlations using PROC CORR and deattenuated the estimates by adjusting for intra-individual variation in the recalls(Reference Beaton, Milner and McGuire27). Deattenuated correlations were calculated by multiplying the Pearson correlation by , where R 1 and R 2 are the first and second applications of the 24HR, and is the mean of R 1 and R 2.

Correlations of diet measures with combined cis- and trans-lycopene, combined lutein and zeaxanthin, and combined α- and β-cryptoxanthin were not reported because individual serum carotenoid measures correlated as well as or better than the aforementioned combined measures and are often of interest in diet–disease associations (e.g. lutein and age-related macular degeneration). For the DHQ and recalls, for β-carotene, we also performed analyses with and without incorporating self-reported β-carotene supplement use.

Covariates considered in the multivariate correlation models were age, energy, serum total cholesterol, serum TAG, BMI, race/ethnicity and education. Given that the large majority of our population was not currently smoking (89 %), and that additional control for smoking did not affect the magnitude of correlations, we did not include smoking in our model building. Potential covariates were assessed via likelihood ratio tests (α = 0·05) and examination of residuals in linear regression models. Our final model included diet-derived energy, BMI, serum total cholesterol and TAG. Substituting energy derived by DLW did not result in substantial changes in magnitude of the correlations.

In an attempt to adjust for potential under- or over-reporting of individual fruits and vegetables on the DHQ, we performed a fruit and vegetable adjust procedure as described by Block with the DHQ data(28). The adjustment did not affect the previous correlations obtained, so the original estimates are presented.

Results

Descriptive statistics of the sample are presented in Table 1. On average, both men and women were 53–54 years of age, non-Hispanic white, overweight, and reported consuming 2–3 servings of fruit and 2–4 servings of vegetables daily depending on the dietary assessment measure. Men had higher mean energy intake than women.

Table 1 Characteristics of the study participants: 470 women and men, the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, September 1999–March 2000

DHQ, Diet History Questionnaire; PYR, pyramid servings; 24HR, 24 h dietary recall; F&V, fruit and vegetable; DLW, doubly labelled water.

Table 2 shows the geometric means of self-reported dietary carotenoid intakes obtained from the DHQ, recalls and screener, as well as concentrations of serum carotenoids and lipids. Mean dietary intakes of all individual carotenoids were highest from the DHQ and lowest from the screener. Screener estimates were higher than 24HR estimates for cryptoxanthin (men and women) and lycopene (women only).

Table 2 Unadjusted geometric means and 95 % confidence intervals of carotenoids and lipids among 470 women and men, the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, September 1999–March 2000

DHQ, Diet History Questionnaire; 24HR, 24 h dietary recall; F&V, fruit and vegetable

†Only β-cryptoxanthin is calculated from the F&V screener.

‡Means (not geometric means) are reported for cholesterol.

Serum carotenoids correlated more strongly with DHQ dietary carotenoids than the average of 24HR dietary carotenoids except for zeaxanthin, for which 24HR correlations were stronger (Table 3). Deattenuation of the correlations between recalls and serum carotenoids to account for within-person variability in diet resulted in substantially higher correlations, as expected. Correlations of serum and diet trans-β-carotene improved slightly when specifically measured supplemental intake was taken into account. In most cases, multivariate correlations of serum carotenoids with the screener-derived carotenoid estimates resembled the serum–DHQ correlations. Overall, energy adjustment and multivariate adjustment improved correlations between serum and dietary measures.

Table 3 CorrelationsFootnote of serum and dietary carotenoids among 470 women and men, the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, September 1999–March 2000

* P < 0·05; **P < 0·01; ***P < 0·001.

Models are adjusted for energy, serum total cholesterol, serum TAG and BMI.

Discussion

The present study makes a contribution to the field of dietary assessment in that we compared three commonly used self-report measures of fruit and vegetable intake with a spectrum of serum carotenoids. The study featured high-quality serum carotenoid measures, a larger sample size, and included an evaluation of a fruit and vegetable screener that was later used in national health surveys(Reference Colon-Ramos, Thompson and Yaroch29, Reference Thompson, Midthune and Subar30). Also, unlike past validation work in this area, we reported on the effect of adjusting for within-person variation when examining correlations between the average of multiple recalls and serum carotenoids and had the ability to evaluate the effect of adjustment for energy as assessed by DLW.

The geometric means of serum carotenoids (α-carotene, β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, trans-lycopene) and cholesterol observed in our study were similar to those in NHANES III(31) and the nationally representative sample in the Eating at America's Table Study (EATS)(Reference Dixon, Subar and Wideroff32). Our sample's mean serum TAG was slightly lower than the NHANES estimate(31).

Similar to other studies that formally examined validity of both FFQ and 24HR measurements(Reference Dixon, Subar and Wideroff32, Reference Natarajan, Flatt and Sun33), our OPEN data showed modest to strong correlations between FFQ and average 24HR diet and serum measures for provitamin A carotenoids (i.e. α-carotene, β-carotene, α-cryptoxanthin, β-cryptoxanthin) and modest correlations for lutein, and trans- and cis-lycopene. Consistent with our previous investigation in EATS (n 163)(Reference Dixon, Subar and Wideroff32), estimates of mean dietary intakes of all individual carotenoids were higher for the DHQ than for the average of recalls. In other past studies examining at least one FFQ and multiple recalls(Reference Natarajan, Flatt and Sun33Reference Tangney, Bienias and Evans39), no particular method of dietary assessment produced consistently stronger correlations with individual serum carotenoids.

Unlike the DHQ, which is designed to measure usual intake over an extended period, the 24HR is designed to measure intake on a given day and is expected to be more highly correlated with true intake on that day than with true usual (long-term average) intake. Consistent with past studies which have formally examined components of variation in reported intake(Reference Beaton, Milner and McGuire27, Reference Ferrari, Al-Delaimy and Slimani40), a large part of the variability of intake as measured by 24HR in our study was due to day-to-day within-person variation. In order to better judge the 24HR's performance, we calculated deattenuated (Pearson) correlations that remove the effect of day-to-day variability. Before deattenuation, correlations between the average of two 24HR and the serum biomarker were usually lower than the corresponding correlations for the DHQ, while after deattenuation they were usually substantially higher than those for the DHQ. These results underscore the need to adjust for day-to-day variability when estimating diet–disease relationships in epidemiological studies that use the 24HR to assess diet, and thus the need for at least two recalls in at least a subsample of the individuals in the study(Reference Beaton, Milner and McGuire27).

Our study was the first to evaluate how well a fruit and vegetable screener estimates some dietary carotenoids (α-carotene, β-carotene, cryptoxanthin, lutein/zeaxanthin and lycopene) and how this performance compares with that of the 24HR and the DHQ. For α-carotene, trans-β-carotene, α-cryptoxanthin, β-cryptoxanthin and lutein, correlations with the screener were only slightly lower than with the DHQ, pointing to the potential value of inclusion of this screener in cross-sectional or longitudinal studies when respondent burden is a main concern and there is interest in estimating carotenoids.

Measurement error models are often used to estimate Pearson correlations between reported and true usual intake of dietary components(Reference Kaaks, Ferrari and Ciampi41). Such models require a valid reference instrument such as DLW or urinary N that is unbiased at the individual level. Concentration biomarkers such as serum carotenoids have person-specific biases related to bioavailability, absorption, metabolism and other factors, so are not valid reference instruments and cannot be used to estimate the correlation of true and reported intake(Reference Kaaks, Ferrari and Ciampi41). The correlation between a serum carotenoid and reported intake can, however, be considered a lower bound of true and reported intake(Reference Rosner, Michels and Chen42).

In the absence of blood data in many large studies, we are often reliant on self-report dietary measures of carotenoid or fruit and vegetable intake. Our study provided evidence that the DHQ, deattenuated recalls or (in some cases) a fruit and vegetable screener may be useful measures for estimating carotenoid status in studies without serum measures. Further, dietary energy was shown to be a good surrogate for DLW energy in these analyses. Ongoing research is needed on how to use biomarkers to complement self-report measures in prediction of disease or survival from disease(Reference Freedman, Kipnis and Schatzkin43).

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. S.M.G. analysed the data. All authors played a role in the writing of the manuscript, and S.M.G., F.E.T. and N.P. had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Appendix

Seven items asked on fruit and vegetable consumption as part of the seventeen-item Multifactorial Screener(Reference Thompson, Midthune and Subar17, 44)

How many times per day, week, or month do you usually eat (or drink):

  1. 1. 100 % fruit juice such as orange, grapefruit, apple, and grape juices? Do not count fruit drinks such as Kool-Aid, lemonade cranberry juice cocktail, Hi-C, and Tang.

  2. 2. fruit? Count fresh, frozen, or canned fruit. Do not count juices.

  3. 3. lettuce or green leafy salad, with or without other vegetables?

  4. 4. French fries, home fries, or hash brown potatoes?

  5. 5. other white potatoes? Count baked potatoes, boiled potatoes, mashed potatoes, and potato salad. Do not include yams or sweet potatoes.

  6. 6. cooked dried beans, such as refried beans, baked beans, bean soup, and pork and beans?

  7. 7. other vegetables? Count any form of vegetable: raw, cooked, canned or frozen. Do not count: lettuce salads, white potatoes, cooked dried beans, rice.

Frequency response categories are: never, 1–3 times last month, 1–2 times per week, 3–4 times per week, 5–6 times per week, 1 time per day, 2 times per day, 3 times per day, 4 or more times per day.

References

1.World Cancer Research Fund & American Institute for Cancer Research (2007) Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: AICR.Google Scholar
2.Mayne, ST (2003) Antioxidant nutrients and chronic disease: use of biomarkers of exposure and oxidative stress status in epidemiologic research. J Nutr 133, Suppl. 3, 933S940S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Bingham, S, Luben, R, Welch, A et al. (2008) Associations between dietary methods and biomarkers, and between fruits and vegetables and risk of ischaemic heart disease, in the EPIC Norfolk Cohort Study. Int J Epidemiol 37, 978987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Day, N, McKeown, N, Wong, M et al. (2001) Epidemiological assessment of diet: a comparison of a 7-day diary with a food frequency questionnaire using urinary markers of nitrogen, potassium and sodium. Int J Epidemiol 30, 309317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Kipnis, V, Subar, AF, Midthune, D et al. (2003) Structure of dietary measurement error: results of the OPEN biomarker study. Am J Epidemiol 158, 1421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Schatzkin, A, Kipnis, V, Carroll, RJ et al. (2003) A comparison of a food frequency questionnaire with a 24-hour recall for use in an epidemiological cohort study: results from the biomarker-based Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) study. Int J Epidemiol 32, 10541062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Rock, CL (1997) Carotenoids: biology and treatment. Pharmacol Ther 75, 185197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Schatzkin, A & Kipnis, V (2004) Could exposure assessment problems give us wrong answers to nutrition and cancer questions? J Natl Cancer Inst 96, 15641565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Subar, AF, Kipnis, V, Troiano, RP et al. (2003) Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: the OPEN study. Am J Epidemiol 158, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.National Institutes of Health (2010) Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ), version 1.0. http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/DHQ (accessed July 2010).Google Scholar
11.US Department of Agriculture (1992) The Food Guide Pyramid. Beltsville, MD: USDA.Google Scholar
12.Nöthlings, U, Murphy, SP, Sharma, S et al. (2006) A comparison of two methods of measuring food group intake: grams vs servings. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 737739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Dixon, LB, Zimmerman, TP, Kahle, LL et al. (2003) Adding carotenoids to the NCI Diet History Questionnaire Database. J Food Compost Anal 16, 269280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Subar, AF, Midthune, D, Kulldorff, M et al. (2000) Evaluation of alternative approaches to assign nutrient values to food groups in food frequency questionnaires. Am J Epidemiol 152, 279286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Moshfegh, A, Raper, N, Ingwersen, L et al. (2001) An improved approach to 24-hour dietary recall methodology. Ann Nutr Metab 45, 56.Google Scholar
16.Tippett, K & Cypel, Y (1997) Design and Operation: The Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the Diet and Health Knowledge Survey, 1994–96. Washington, DC: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.Google Scholar
17.Thompson, FE, Midthune, D, Subar, AF et al. (2004) Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre. Public Health Nutr 7, 10971105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Scholler, D (1992) Isotope dilution methods. In Obesity, pp. 8088 [P Borniorp and B Brodoff, editors]. Philadelphia, PA: Lipincott Company.Google Scholar
19.Racette, SB, Schoeller, DA, Luke, AH et al. (1994) Relative dilution spaces of 2H- and 18O-labeled water in humans. Am J Physiol 267, E585E590.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Briefel, R, Sempos, C, McDowell, M et al. (1997) Dietary methods research in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: underreporting of energy intake. Am J Clin Nutr 65, 4 Suppl., 1203S1209S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.de Vries, J, Zock, P, Mensink, R et al. (1994) Underestimation of energy intake by 3-d records compared with energy intake to maintain body weight in 269 nonobese adults. Am J Clin Nutr 60, 855860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Hirvonen, T, Mannisto, S, Roos, E et al. (1997) Increasing prevalence of underreporting does not necessarily distort dietary surveys. Eur J Clin Nutr 51, 297301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Johansson, L, Solvoll, K, Bjorneboe, GE et al. (1998) Under- and overreporting of energy intake related to weight status and lifestyle in a nationwide sample. Am J Clin Nutr 68, 266274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Johnson, R, Goran, M & Poehlman, E (1994) Correlates of over- and underreporting of energy intake in healthy older men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 59, 12861290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Krebs-Smith, SM, Graubard, BI, Kahle, LL et al. (2000) Low energy reporters vs others: a comparison of reported food intakes. Eur J Clin Nutr 54, 281287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Price, GM, Paul, AA, Cole, TJ et al. (1997) Characteristics of the low-energy reporters in a longitudinal national dietary survey. Br J Nutr 77, 833851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Beaton, G, Milner, J, McGuire, V et al. (1983) Source of variance in 24-hour dietary recall data: implications for nutrition study design and interpretation. Carbohydrate sources, vitamins, and minerals. Am J Clin Nutr 37, 986995.Google ScholarPubMed
28.National Cancer Institute's Applied Research Program (2005) Diet*Calc Analysis Program, Version 1.4.3.Google Scholar
29.Colon-Ramos, U, Thompson, FE, Yaroch, AL et al. (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, 18781885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Thompson, FE, Midthune, D, Subar, AF et al. (2005) Dietary intake estimates in the National Health Interview Survey, 2000: methodology, results, and interpretation. J Am Diet Assoc 105, 352363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine (2000) Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E. Selenium, and Carotenoids. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
32.Dixon, LB, Subar, AF, Wideroff, L et al. (2006) Carotenoid and tocopherol estimates from the NCI diet history questionnaire are valid compared with multiple recalls and serum biomarkers. J Nutr 136, 30543061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Natarajan, L, Flatt, SW, Sun, X et al. (2006) Validity and systematic error in measuring carotenoid consumption with dietary self-report instruments. Am J Epidemiol 163, 770778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.EPIC Group of Spain, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (1997) Relative validity and reproducibility of a diet history questionnaire in Spain. III. Biochemical markers. Int J Epidemiol 26, Suppl. 1, S110S117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Kabagambe, EK, Baylin, A, Allan, DA et al. (2001) Application of the method of triads to evaluate the performance of food frequency questionnaires and biomarkers as indicators of long-term dietary intake. Am J Epidemiol 154, 11261135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Ocke, MC & Kaaks, RJ (1997) Biochemical markers as additional measurements in dietary validity studies: application of the method of triads with examples from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 65, 4 Suppl., 1240S1245S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Resnicow, K, Odom, E, Wang, T et al. (2000) Validation of three food frequency questionnaires and 24-hour recalls with serum carotenoid levels in a sample of African-American adults. Am J Epidemiol 152, 10721080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Shai, I, Rosner, BA, Shahar, DR et al. (2005) Dietary evaluation and attenuation of relative risk: multiple comparisons between blood and urinary biomarkers, food frequency, and 24-hour recall questionnaires: the DEARR study. J Nutr 135, 573579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Tangney, CC, Bienias, JL, Evans, DA et al. (2004) Reasonable estimates of serum vitamin E, vitamin C, and β-cryptoxanthin are obtained with a food frequency questionnaire in older black and white adults. J Nutr 134, 927934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Ferrari, P, Al-Delaimy, WK, Slimani, N et al. (2005) An approach to estimate between- and within-group correlation coefficients in multicenter studies: plasma carotenoids as biomarkers of intake of fruits and vegetables. Am J Epidemiol 162, 591598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Kaaks, R, Ferrari, P, Ciampi, A et al. (2002) Uses and limitations of statistical accounting for random error correlations, in the validation of dietary questionnaire assessments. Public Health Nutr 5, 969976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Rosner, B, Michels, KB, Chen, Y-H et al. (2008) Measurement error correction for nutritional exposures with correlated measurement error: use of the method of triads in a longitudinal setting. Stat Med 27, 34663489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.Freedman, L, Kipnis, V, Schatzkin, A et al. (2010) Can we use biomarkers in combination with self-reports to strengthen the analysis of nutritional epidemiologic studies? Epidemiol Perspect Innovat 7, 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.National Cancer Institute (1999) Multifactorial Screener. http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/surveys/nhis/multifactor/multi_screener.pdf (accessed July 2010).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Study flow and activities, the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, September 1999–March 2000

Figure 1

Table 1 Characteristics of the study participants: 470 women and men, the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, September 1999–March 2000

Figure 2

Table 2 Unadjusted geometric means and 95 % confidence intervals of carotenoids and lipids among 470 women and men, the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, September 1999–March 2000

Figure 3

Table 3 Correlations† of serum and dietary carotenoids among 470 women and men, the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, September 1999–March 2000