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}
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.
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.