ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2026
Estimating Animal and Plant Protein Intakes in Diet Assessed by Automated Self-Administered 24-h Recall (ASA24) and Food Records.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Despite growing interest in the distinct roles of animal protein (AP) and plant protein (PP) in health, commonly used dietary assessment instruments estimate only total protein intake and do not differentiate between protein sources. Objectives: This study aimed to develop a protocol to estimate AP and PP intake in diets assessed by the automated self-administered 24-h recall (ASA24) and food records. Methods: We used data from the Interactive Diet and Activity Tracking Study, including 926 participants (mean age, 63.1 y). Participants completed ≤6 ASA24s and two 4-d food records (4DFRs) over 12 mo. AP and PP were defined as proteins derived from animal- and plant-based foods, respectively. AP and PP were estimated by linking foods reported on ASA24 and 4DFR to the USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies, USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, MyPyramid Equivalents Database, and Nutrition Data System for Research. The validity of the method was assessed by comparing the original total protein intake to the summed AP and PP estimates. Results: A total of 3171 and 3652 unique foods were reported on the ASA24s and 4DFRs, respectively. The mean difference between the original total protein values and the sum of AP and PP was negligible for both ASA24 (0.027 g/100 g food; SD = 0.63) and 4DFR (0.019 g/100 g food; SD = 0.69). Approximately 89% of ASA24 and 88% of 4DFR foods had differences within ±0.1 g/100 g. On the basis of ASA24, AP accounted for 61% of total protein intake in males and 57% in females. The top sources of AP were red meat (19.3%), poultry (14.0%), and cheese (10.4%). In contrast, PP was mainly from bread (19.6%), nuts and seeds (10.9%), and pasta (7.1%). Conclusions: This protocol provides a practical tool for estimating AP and PP intake from ASA24, thereby advancing nutritional epidemiologic research and supporting the development of evidence-based dietary guidelines.
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.