ArticleCell reports methods2026
Evaluation of the effects of a new standard equation for doubly labeled water studies.
Article in Cell reports methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The validity of measuring energy and nutrient intake with the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) in adolescents.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Trial
- Longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence that daily resting and activity energy expenditures are independent in humans.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate measurement of energy expenditure is critical for metabolic research and public health. Doubly labeled water (DLW) is the gold standard for assessing free-living energy expenditure, yet inconsistencies in equations impede comparability across studies. This analysis evaluates a newly proposed standardized equation of energy expenditure from the DLW method against commonly employed historical equations. Using validation data from whole-room indirect calorimetry, we demonstrate that the new equation offers improved accuracy. Further, analysis of a large historical dataset and mathematical modeling revealed a systematic bias of ∼1.6%, indicative of an underestimation of energy expenditure estimates with the new equation compared to previous equations. Application of a newly developed correction factor mitigated this bias, allowing for closer alignment between equations. These findings support adoption of the new standard equation and offer a corrective approach for harmonizing data, thereby facilitating methodological consistency in DLW studies and allowing for the preservation of the utility of historical datasets.
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.