ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2025
Biomarker-assisted reporting in nutritional epidemiology: addressing measurement error in exposure-disease associations.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Food frequency questionnaires are ranking tools, not rulers: a measurement problem hiding in plain sight.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In nutritional epidemiology, self-reported dietary data are commonly used to investigate diet-disease relationships. However, the resulting association estimates are often subject to biases due to random and systematic measurement errors. Regression calibration has emerged as a crucial method for addressing these biases by refining self-reported nutrient intake with objective biomarkers, which differ from the true values only by a random "noise" component. This paper presents methodological tools for analyzing nutritional epidemiology cohort studies involving time-to-event data when a biomarker subsample is available alongside dietary assessments. We introduce novel regression calibration methods to tackle two common challenges in this field. First, a widely used approach assumes that the log hazard ratio (HR) follows a linear function of dietary exposure. However, assessing whether this assumption holds-or if a more flexible model is needed to capture potential deviations from linearity-is often necessary. Second, another prevalent analytical strategy involves estimating HRs based on categorized dietary exposure variables. New methods are critically needed to minimize bias in defining category boundaries and estimating hazard ratios within exposure categories, both of which can be distorted by measurement error. We apply these methods to reassess the relationship between sodium and potassium intake and cardiovascular disease risk using data from the Women's Health Initiative.
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.