Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41487674›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025

Modeling frameworks in nutritional epidemiology matter: comparing isotemporal and time-lagged Bayesian and frequentist approaches of carbohydrate intake and adiposity.

Sean Titensor, Joshua L Ebbert, David Camacho, Karen A Della Corte, Antonio L Palmeira, R James Stubbs, Graham Horgan, Berit L Heitmann, Dennis Della Corte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sean Titensor *Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, United States.
Joshua L Ebbert *Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, United States.
David Camacho *Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, United States.
Karen A Della CorteDepartment of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Science, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, United States.
Antonio L PalmeiraCIDEFES, Universidade Lusófona, Lisbon, Portugal.
R James StubbsAppetite Control and Energy Balance Group, School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Graham HorganBiomathematics and Statistics Scotland, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Berit L HeitmannResearch Unit for Diet and Health, The Parker Institute, Frederiksberg and Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dennis Della CorteDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Understanding how different modeling strategies affect associations in nutritional epidemiology is critical, especially given the temporal complexity of dietary and health data. Objective: To compare how different modeling frameworks-including isotemporal versus time-lagged designs and frequentist versus Bayesian inference-affect estimated associations between carbohydrate subtypes and adiposity. Methods: Longitudinal data of 415 adults from the NoHoW Study were used to investigate associations between four carbohydrate predictors (free sugars, intrinsic sugars, starch, and dietary fiber) and three indices of adiposity (body fat percentage, BMI, and waist circumference) as outcomes. Four statistical approaches were used contrasting frequentist and Bayesian methods across both isotemporal (concurrent measurement) and time-lagged (6-month temporal shift) frameworks. To specifically evaluate Results: Isotemporal and time-lagged models showed directional agreement for nearly all associations; in all but one case, the models either aligned in the direction of the association or differed only in relation to the null. However, time-lagged models identified statistically significant associations and produced larger effect sizes for body fat outcomes and for starch and fiber predictors. Other associations, including intrinsic and free sugars, were weaker and varied with model specification, losing statistical support under time-lagged models. Frequentist models exhibited greater variation across temporal frameworks, including one directional shift among significant associations. Effect estimates were substantially attenuated after adjustment for baseline adiposity. Discussion: Time-lagged modeling shifted associations between carbohydrate intake and anthropometric outcomes, with increased effect sizes and additional significant associations for starch and fiber, and fewer statistically significant associations for intrinsic and extrinsic sugars. In contrast to frequentist models, Bayesian models yielded more stable and consistent estimates across time-lagged and isotemporal frameworks, showing no differences in the directions of associations across temporal frameworks. Models unadjusted for baseline adiposity overstate dietary impacts; including baseline adiposity is essential to isolate true diet-change effects from initial weight. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that incorporating temporal structure, especially through Bayesian models, can uncover relevant relationships that concurrent models may overlook. This study demonstrates that model specification, both in temporal framework and statistical approach, meaningfully influences both the detection and interpretations of associations in nutritional epidemiology.

Indexed as

adiposityBayesian inferencecarbohydrate intakefrequentist statisticsisotemporal substitutionlongitudinal modelingstatistical modelingtime-lagged analysis

Identifiers

PMID41487674
PMCPMC12756090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.