3.8 Article

Statistical Aspects of the Use of Biomarkers in Nutritional Epidemiology Research

Journal

STATISTICS IN BIOSCIENCES
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 112-123

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12561-009-9003-4

Keywords

Biological markers; Epidemiologic methods; Human feeding study; Indirect calorimetry; Nutrition Measurement error; Regression calibration

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA119171, CA53996]
  2. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [N01-WH22110]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few strong and consistent associations have arisen from observational studies of dietary consumption in relation to chronic disease risk. Measurement error in self-reported dietary assessment may be obscuring many such associations. Attempts to correct for measurement error have mostly used a second self-reported assessment in a subset of a study cohort to calibrate the self-reported assessment used throughout the cohort, under the dubious assumption of uncorrelated measurement errors between the two assessments. The use, instead, of objective biomarkers of nutrient consumption to produce calibrated consumption estimates provides a promising approach to enhance study reliability. As summarized here, we have recently applied this nutrient biomarker approach to examine energy, protein, and percent of energy from protein, in relation to disease incidence in Women's Health Initiative cohorts, and find strong associations that are not evident without biomarker calibration. A major bottleneck for the broader use of a biomarker-calibration approach is the rather few nutrients for which a suitable biomarker has been developed. Some methodologic approaches to the development of additional pertinent biomarkers, including the possible use of a respiratory quotient from indirect calorimetry for macronutrient biomarker development, and the potential of human feeding studies for the evaluation of a range of urine- and blood-based potential biomarkers, will briefly be described.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available