Assuming the "Best-Fit" Shape of the Usual Nutrient Intake Distribution (with nutriR) Does Not Affect Prevalence Estimates of Nutrient Intake Inadequacy: Results from a Dietary Intake Survey in Ivorian School-Age Children.
Katie Ayling, Elise F Talsma, Amoin Georgette Konan, Georges Tiahou, Mory Gbane, Ingeborg Bovee-Oudenhoven, Alida Melse-Boonstra
{"title":"Assuming the \"Best-Fit\" Shape of the Usual Nutrient Intake Distribution (with nutriR) Does Not Affect Prevalence Estimates of Nutrient Intake Inadequacy: Results from a Dietary Intake Survey in Ivorian School-Age Children.","authors":"Katie Ayling, Elise F Talsma, Amoin Georgette Konan, Georges Tiahou, Mory Gbane, Ingeborg Bovee-Oudenhoven, Alida Melse-Boonstra","doi":"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Common methods to assess nutrient intake inadequacy are the estimated average requirement (EAR) cut-point method and the probability of adequacy (PA). It has been postulated that the shape of the intake distribution can have a significant impact on estimates of inadequacy. The \"nutritional intake functions for R\" (\"nutriR\") package has been developed to address this.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess the impact of assuming the \"best-fit\" shape of nutrient intake distributions (using nutriR) on prevalence estimates of inadequate nutrient intake, as compared with observed nutrient intake distributions with the EAR cut-point or PA method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional dietary intake survey was conducted among 443 Ivorian school-aged children (6-12 y) by 24-h recall, with nonconsecutive repeats for 13% of the population. Six methods to estimate the prevalence of intake inadequacy for 11 nutrients were compared: methods 1-3 used single 24-h recall data to either apply the 1) EAR cut-point method, 2) the PA method, or 3) the nutriR method; and methods 4-6 applied the same methods after correction for within-person variation using the Statistical Program to Assess Usual Dietary Exposure, which generates estimates of usual daily nutrient intake.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nutrient intake distributions were right skewed (skewness average 1.0, range: 0.4-2.0) and showed large variation (coefficient of variation average 40%, range: 20%-60%). The prevalence estimates of inadequate nutrient intake were similar across all methods, with a mean difference of ±5 percent point (range: 0-27 percent point). The smallest mean differences, 0.4 and 0.3 percent points, were observed with usual intake data between nutriR and EAR cut-point (method 6 compared with 4), and nutriR and PA (method 6 compared with 5), respectively. Larger differences (∼12 percent point) were observed when comparing single 24-h recall data (methods 1-3) with usual intake (methods 4-6).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Assuming nutrient intake distributions with the shape of \"best-fit\" to the observed intake distribution did not affect prevalence estimates of nutrient inadequacy in this population of Ivorian school children. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT06175130.</p>","PeriodicalId":16620,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Common methods to assess nutrient intake inadequacy are the estimated average requirement (EAR) cut-point method and the probability of adequacy (PA). It has been postulated that the shape of the intake distribution can have a significant impact on estimates of inadequacy. The "nutritional intake functions for R" ("nutriR") package has been developed to address this.
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of assuming the "best-fit" shape of nutrient intake distributions (using nutriR) on prevalence estimates of inadequate nutrient intake, as compared with observed nutrient intake distributions with the EAR cut-point or PA method.
Methods: A cross-sectional dietary intake survey was conducted among 443 Ivorian school-aged children (6-12 y) by 24-h recall, with nonconsecutive repeats for 13% of the population. Six methods to estimate the prevalence of intake inadequacy for 11 nutrients were compared: methods 1-3 used single 24-h recall data to either apply the 1) EAR cut-point method, 2) the PA method, or 3) the nutriR method; and methods 4-6 applied the same methods after correction for within-person variation using the Statistical Program to Assess Usual Dietary Exposure, which generates estimates of usual daily nutrient intake.
Results: Nutrient intake distributions were right skewed (skewness average 1.0, range: 0.4-2.0) and showed large variation (coefficient of variation average 40%, range: 20%-60%). The prevalence estimates of inadequate nutrient intake were similar across all methods, with a mean difference of ±5 percent point (range: 0-27 percent point). The smallest mean differences, 0.4 and 0.3 percent points, were observed with usual intake data between nutriR and EAR cut-point (method 6 compared with 4), and nutriR and PA (method 6 compared with 5), respectively. Larger differences (∼12 percent point) were observed when comparing single 24-h recall data (methods 1-3) with usual intake (methods 4-6).
Conclusions: Assuming nutrient intake distributions with the shape of "best-fit" to the observed intake distribution did not affect prevalence estimates of nutrient inadequacy in this population of Ivorian school children. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT06175130.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Nutrition (JN/J Nutr) publishes peer-reviewed original research papers covering all aspects of experimental nutrition in humans and other animal species; special articles such as reviews and biographies of prominent nutrition scientists; and issues, opinions, and commentaries on controversial issues in nutrition. Supplements are frequently published to provide extended discussion of topics of special interest.