ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2023
A multivariate joint model to adjust for random measurement error while handling skewness and correlation in dietary data in an epidemiologic study of mortality.
Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA substantial proportion of global deaths is attributed to unhealthy diets, which can be assessed at baseline or longitudinally. We demonstrated how to simultaneously correct for random measurement error, correlations, and skewness in the estimation of associations between dietary intake and all-cause mortality.
methodsWe applied a multivariate joint model (MJM) that simultaneously corrected for random measurement error, skewness, and correlation among longitudinally measured intake levels of cholesterol, total fat, dietary fiber, and energy with all-cause mortality using US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey linked to the National Death Index mortality data. We compared MJM with the mean method that assessed intake levels as the mean of a person's intake.
resultsThe estimates from MJM were larger than those from the mean method. For instance, the logarithm of hazard ratio for dietary fiber intake increased by 14 times (from -0.04 to -0.60) with the MJM method. This translated into a relative hazard of death of 0.55 (95% credible interval: 0.45, 0.65) with the MJM and 0.96 (95% credible interval: 0.95, 0.97) with the mean method.
conclusionsMJM adjusts for random measurement error and flexibly addresses correlations and skewness among longitudinal measures of dietary intake when estimating their associations with death.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.