Evaluation of the 24-Hour Recall as a Reference Instrument for Calibrating Other Self-Report Instruments in Nutritional Cohort Studies: Evidence From the Validation Studies Pooling Project.

Calibrating dietary self-report instruments is recommended as a way to adjust for measurement error when estimating diet-disease associations. Because biomarkers available for calibration are limited, most investigators use self-reports (e.g., 24-hour recalls (24HRs)) as the reference instrument. We evaluated the performance of 24HRs as reference instruments for calibrating food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), using data from the Validation Studies Pooling Project, comprising 5 large validation studies using recovery biomarkers. Using 24HRs as reference instruments, we estimated attenuation factors, correlations with truth, and calibration equations for FFQ-reported intakes of energy and for protein, potassium, and sodium and their densities, and we compared them with values derived using biomarkers. Based on 24HRs, FFQ attenuation factors were substantially overestimated for energy and sodium intakes, less for protein and potassium, and minimally for nutrient densities. FFQ correlations with truth, based on 24HRs, were substantially overestimated for all dietary components. Calibration equations did not capture dependencies on body mass index. We also compared predicted bias in estimated relative risks adjusted using 24HRs as reference instruments with bias when making no adjustment. In disease models with energy and 1 or more nutrient intakes, predicted bias in estimated nutrient relative risks was reduced on average, but bias in the energy risk coefficient was unchanged.

Application of a New Statistical Model for Measurement Error to the Evaluation of Dietary Self-report Instruments.

Most statistical methods that adjust analyses for dietary measurement error treat an individual's usual intake as a fixed quantity. However, usual intake, if defined as average intake over a few months, varies over time. We describe a model that accounts for such variation and for the proximity of biomarker measurements to self-reports within the framework of a meta-analysis, and apply it to the analysis of data on energy, protein, potassium, and sodium from a set of five large validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers as reference instruments. We show that this time-varying usual intake model fits the data better than the fixed usual intake assumption. Using this model, we estimated attenuation factors and correlations with true longer-term usual intake for single and multiple 24-hour dietary recalls (24HRs) and food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and compared them with those obtained under the "fixed" method. Compared with the fixed method, the estimates using the time-varying model showed slightly larger values of the attenuation factor and correlation coefficient for FFQs and smaller values for 24HRs. In some cases, the difference between the fixed method estimate and the new estimate for multiple 24HRs was substantial. With the new method, while four 24HRs had higher estimated correlations with truth than a single FFQ for absolute intakes of protein, potassium, and sodium, for densities the correlations were approximately equal. Accounting for the time element in dietary validation is potentially important, and points toward the need for longer-term validation studies.

Pooled results from 5 validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers for potassium and sodium intake.

We pooled data from 5 large validation studies (1999-2009) of dietary self-report instruments that used recovery biomarkers as referents, to assess food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and 24-hour recalls (24HRs). Here we report on total potassium and sodium intakes, their densities, and their ratio. Results were similar by sex but were heterogeneous across studies. For potassium, potassium density, sodium, sodium density, and sodium:potassium ratio, average correlation coefficients for the correlation of reported intake with true intake on the FFQs were 0.37, 0.47, 0.16, 0.32, and 0.49, respectively. For the same nutrients measured with a single 24HR, they were 0.47, 0.46, 0.32, 0.31, and 0.46, respectively, rising to 0.56, 0.53, 0.41, 0.38, and 0.60 for the average of three 24HRs. Average underreporting was 5%-6% with an FFQ and 0%-4% with a single 24HR for potassium but was 28%-39% and 4%-13%, respectively, for sodium. Higher body mass index was related to underreporting of sodium. Calibration equations for true intake that included personal characteristics provided improved prediction, except for sodium density. In summary, self-reports capture potassium intake quite well but sodium intake less well. Using densities improves the measurement of potassium and sodium on an FFQ. Sodium:potassium ratio is measured much better than sodium itself on both FFQs and 24HRs.

Pooled results from 5 validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers for energy and protein intake.

We pooled data from 5 large validation studies of dietary self-report instruments that used recovery biomarkers as references to clarify the measurement properties of food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and 24-hour recalls. The studies were conducted in widely differing US adult populations from 1999 to 2009. We report on total energy, protein, and protein density intakes. Results were similar across sexes, but there was heterogeneity across studies. Using a FFQ, the average correlation coefficients for reported versus true intakes for energy, protein, and protein density were 0.21, 0.29, and 0.41, respectively. Using a single 24-hour recall, the coefficients were 0.26, 0.40, and 0.36, respectively, for the same nutrients and rose to 0.31, 0.49, and 0.46 when three 24-hour recalls were averaged. The average rate of under-reporting of energy intake was 28% with a FFQ and 15% with a single 24-hour recall, but the percentages were lower for protein. Personal characteristics related to under-reporting were body mass index, educational level, and age. Calibration equations for true intake that included personal characteristics provided improved prediction. This project establishes that FFQs have stronger correlations with truth for protein density than for absolute protein intake, that the use of multiple 24-hour recalls substantially increases the correlations when compared with a single 24-hour recall, and that body mass index strongly predicts under-reporting of energy and protein intakes.

Pathologic findings following false-positive screening tests for ovarian cancer in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), ovarian cancer screening with transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) and CA-125 produced a large number of false-positive tests. We examined relationships between histopathologic diagnoses, false-positive test group, and participant and screening test characteristics. METHODS: The PLCO ovarian cancer screening arm included 39,105 women aged 55-74 years assigned to annual CA-125 and TVU. Histopathologic diagnoses from women with false-positive tests and subsequent surgery were reviewed in this analysis: all CA125+ (n=121); all CA125+/TVU+ (n=46); and a random sample of TVU+ (n=373). Demographic and ovarian cancer risk factor data were self-reported. Pathologic diagnoses were abstracted from surgical pathology reports. We compared participant characteristics and pathologic diagnoses by category of false-positive using Pearson χ2, Fisher's exact, or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Women with a false-positive TVU were younger (P<0.001), heavier (P<0.001), and reported a higher frequency of prior hysterectomy (P<0.001). Serous cystadenoma, the most common benign ovarian diagnosis, was more frequent among women with TVU+ compared to CA-125+ and CA-125+/TVU+ (P<0.001). Benign non-ovarian findings were commonly associated with all false-positives, although more frequently with CA-125+ than TVU+ or CA-125+/TVU+ groups (P=0.019). Non-ovarian cancers were diagnosed most frequently among CA-125+ (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: False-positive ovarian cancer screening tests were associated with a range of histopathologic diagnoses, some of which may be related to patient and screening test characteristics. Further research into the predictors of false-positive ovarian cancer screening tests may aid efforts to reduce false-positive results.