根据美国国立卫生研究院-美国退休人员协会饮食与健康研究中的Nova分类系统估算超加工食品摄入量的食物频率问卷的性能。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Erikka Loftfield, Pei Zhang, Caitlin P O'Connell, Lisa L Kahle, Kirsten Herrick, Leila Abar, Neha Khandpur, Eurídice Martínez Steele, Hyokyoung G Hong
{"title":"根据美国国立卫生研究院-美国退休人员协会饮食与健康研究中的Nova分类系统估算超加工食品摄入量的食物频率问卷的性能。","authors":"Erikka Loftfield, Pei Zhang, Caitlin P O'Connell, Lisa L Kahle, Kirsten Herrick, Leila Abar, Neha Khandpur, Eurídice Martínez Steele, Hyokyoung G Hong","doi":"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.04.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>How accurately ultraprocessed food (UPF) intake is measured by food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the performance of a 124-item FFQ for estimating UPF intake with Nova.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 1311 NIH-American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study participants who completed 2 nonconsecutive 24-hour dietary recalls (24HDR) and 2 FFQ, we used 2 methods to estimate UPF intake. First, 4 experts independently matched FFQ items to food descriptions from another FFQ classified previously according to Nova. Discordant descriptions were discussed, and a consensus reached. Second, data from the 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake of Individuals were used to match disaggregated FFQ items to Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) and standard reference (SR) codes. Nova classification of FNDDS and SR codes was based on database linkage. We evaluated FFQ performance using a measurement error model with 2 24HDR as the reference to estimate validity coefficients (ρ<sub>Q,T</sub>) and attenuation factors (λ<sub>Q</sub>). We applied parametric bootstrapping to construct 95% confidence intervals, accounting for the repeated measures structure in the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For energy-adjusted, kilocalories from UPF (kcal/d), ρ<sub>Q,T</sub> were 0.50 (0.39-0.61) and 0.44 (0.30-0.59), for males and females, respectively, for the expert consensus method (ECM) and 0.52 (0.40-0.63) and 0.43 (0.29-0.57) for the food code method (FCM). For energy-adjusted, gram weight from UPF (g/d), ρ<sub>Q,T</sub> were 0.65 (0.60-0.71) and 0.66 (0.60-0.72) for the ECM and 0.66 (0.52-0.65) and 0.66 (0.59-0.72) for the FCM; λ<sub>Q</sub> were ≥0.50 for both methods. UPF variables, defined using the ECM and FCM but expressed in the same unit, were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.97).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FCM, performed similarly to ECM but has the potential to standardize UPF exposures across studies because the Nova categorization is assigned at a more granular level through database linkage. UPF intake based on energy-adjusted gram weight outperformed intake based on energy alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":16620,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of a Food Frequency Questionnaire for Estimating Ultraprocessed Food Intake According to the Nova Classification System in the United States NIH-American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Diet and Health Study.\",\"authors\":\"Erikka Loftfield, Pei Zhang, Caitlin P O'Connell, Lisa L Kahle, Kirsten Herrick, Leila Abar, Neha Khandpur, Eurídice Martínez Steele, Hyokyoung G Hong\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.04.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>How accurately ultraprocessed food (UPF) intake is measured by food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the performance of a 124-item FFQ for estimating UPF intake with Nova.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 1311 NIH-American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study participants who completed 2 nonconsecutive 24-hour dietary recalls (24HDR) and 2 FFQ, we used 2 methods to estimate UPF intake. First, 4 experts independently matched FFQ items to food descriptions from another FFQ classified previously according to Nova. Discordant descriptions were discussed, and a consensus reached. Second, data from the 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake of Individuals were used to match disaggregated FFQ items to Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) and standard reference (SR) codes. Nova classification of FNDDS and SR codes was based on database linkage. We evaluated FFQ performance using a measurement error model with 2 24HDR as the reference to estimate validity coefficients (ρ<sub>Q,T</sub>) and attenuation factors (λ<sub>Q</sub>). We applied parametric bootstrapping to construct 95% confidence intervals, accounting for the repeated measures structure in the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For energy-adjusted, kilocalories from UPF (kcal/d), ρ<sub>Q,T</sub> were 0.50 (0.39-0.61) and 0.44 (0.30-0.59), for males and females, respectively, for the expert consensus method (ECM) and 0.52 (0.40-0.63) and 0.43 (0.29-0.57) for the food code method (FCM). For energy-adjusted, gram weight from UPF (g/d), ρ<sub>Q,T</sub> were 0.65 (0.60-0.71) and 0.66 (0.60-0.72) for the ECM and 0.66 (0.52-0.65) and 0.66 (0.59-0.72) for the FCM; λ<sub>Q</sub> were ≥0.50 for both methods. UPF variables, defined using the ECM and FCM but expressed in the same unit, were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.97).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FCM, performed similarly to ECM but has the potential to standardize UPF exposures across studies because the Nova categorization is assigned at a more granular level through database linkage. UPF intake based on energy-adjusted gram weight outperformed intake based on energy alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nutrition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-05\",\"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.2025.04.029\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.04.029","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

摘要

背景:用食物频率问卷(FFQ)测量超加工食品(UPF)摄入量的准确性尚不清楚。目的:我们评估了124项FFQ评估Nova患者UPF摄入量的性能。方法:在n=1311名完成两次非连续24小时饮食回顾(24HDR)和两次FFQ的NIH-AARP饮食与健康研究参与者中,我们使用两种方法来估计UPF摄入量。首先,四位专家独立地将FFQ项目与Nova先前分类的另一个FFQ中的食品描述进行匹配。讨论了不一致的描述,并达成了一致意见。其次,利用1994-1996年美国个人食物摄入持续调查的数据,将FFQ分类条目与膳食研究食品和营养数据库(FNDDS)和标准参考代码进行匹配。FNDDS和SR编码的Nova分类基于数据库链接。我们使用测量误差模型评估FFQ性能,以两个24HDR作为参考,估计有效性系数(ρQ,T)和衰减因子(λQ)。考虑到数据中的重复测量结构,我们应用参数自举构造95%置信区间。结果:对于能量调整,男性和女性专家共识法(ECM)的UPF (kcal/day)、ρQ、T分别为0.50(0.39-0.61)和0.44(0.30-0.59),食品编码法(FCM)的分别为0.52(0.40-0.63)和0.43(0.29-0.57)。能量调整后,ECM的UPF克重(g/d)、ρQ、T分别为0.65(0.60 ~ 0.71)和0.66 (0.60 ~ 0.72),FCM的ρQ、T分别为0.66(0.52 ~ 0.65)和0.66 (0.59 ~ 0.72);两种方法的λQ均≥0.50。使用ECM和FCM定义但以同一单位表达的UPF变量高度相关(r≥0.97)。结论:FCM的表现与ECM相似,但由于Nova分类是通过数据库链接在更细粒度的水平上分配的,因此有可能在研究中标准化UPF暴露。基于能量调整克体重的UPF摄入量优于仅基于能量的摄入量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance of a Food Frequency Questionnaire for Estimating Ultraprocessed Food Intake According to the Nova Classification System in the United States NIH-American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Diet and Health Study.

Background: How accurately ultraprocessed food (UPF) intake is measured by food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) is unknown.

Objectives: We evaluated the performance of a 124-item FFQ for estimating UPF intake with Nova.

Methods: In 1311 NIH-American Association of Retired Persons Diet and Health Study participants who completed 2 nonconsecutive 24-hour dietary recalls (24HDR) and 2 FFQ, we used 2 methods to estimate UPF intake. First, 4 experts independently matched FFQ items to food descriptions from another FFQ classified previously according to Nova. Discordant descriptions were discussed, and a consensus reached. Second, data from the 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake of Individuals were used to match disaggregated FFQ items to Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) and standard reference (SR) codes. Nova classification of FNDDS and SR codes was based on database linkage. We evaluated FFQ performance using a measurement error model with 2 24HDR as the reference to estimate validity coefficients (ρQ,T) and attenuation factors (λQ). We applied parametric bootstrapping to construct 95% confidence intervals, accounting for the repeated measures structure in the data.

Results: For energy-adjusted, kilocalories from UPF (kcal/d), ρQ,T were 0.50 (0.39-0.61) and 0.44 (0.30-0.59), for males and females, respectively, for the expert consensus method (ECM) and 0.52 (0.40-0.63) and 0.43 (0.29-0.57) for the food code method (FCM). For energy-adjusted, gram weight from UPF (g/d), ρQ,T were 0.65 (0.60-0.71) and 0.66 (0.60-0.72) for the ECM and 0.66 (0.52-0.65) and 0.66 (0.59-0.72) for the FCM; λQ were ≥0.50 for both methods. UPF variables, defined using the ECM and FCM but expressed in the same unit, were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.97).

Conclusions: FCM, performed similarly to ECM but has the potential to standardize UPF exposures across studies because the Nova categorization is assigned at a more granular level through database linkage. UPF intake based on energy-adjusted gram weight outperformed intake based on energy alone.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Nutrition
Journal of Nutrition 医学-营养学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
260
审稿时长
39 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信