Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T01:20:22.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Innovative approaches to estimate individual usual dietary intake in large-scale epidemiological studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2017

Johanna Conrad*
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Nutritional Epidemiology, University of Bonn, Endenicher Allee 11-13, 53115 Bonn, Germany
Ute Nöthlings
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Nutritional Epidemiology, University of Bonn, Endenicher Allee 11-13, 53115 Bonn, Germany
*
*Corresponding author: Dr J. Conrad, fax +49 228 7360492, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Valid estimation of usual dietary intake in epidemiological studies is a topic of present interest. The aim of the present paper is to review recent literature on innovative approaches focussing on: (1) the requirements to assess usual intake and (2) the application in large-scale settings. Recently, a number of technology-based self-administered tools have been developed, including short-term instruments such as web-based 24-h recalls, mobile food records or simple closed-ended questionnaires that assess the food intake of the previous 24 h. Due to their advantages in terms of feasibility and cost-effectiveness these tools may be superior to conventional assessment methods in large-scale settings. New statistical methods have been developed to combine dietary information from repeated 24-h dietary recalls and FFQ. Conceptually, these statistical methods presume that the usual food intake of a subject equals the probability of consuming a food on a given day, multiplied by the average amount of intake of that food on a typical consumption day. Repeated 24-h recalls from the same individual provide information on consumption probability and amount. In addition, the FFQ can add information on intake frequency of rarely consumed foods. It has been suggested that this combined approach may provide high-quality dietary information. A promising direction for estimation of usual intake in large-scale settings is the integration of both statistical methods and new technologies. Studies are warranted to assess the validity of estimated usual intake in comparison with biomarkers.

Type
Conference on ‘New technology in nutrition research and practice’
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2017 

Valid estimation of usual dietary intake, i.e. the long-term average intake of a subject, in epidemiological studies is a topic of present interest. As diet–health estimations are based on dietary intakes over the long-term( Reference Thompson, Subar, Coulston, Boushey and Ferruzzi 1 ), the usual intake of a subject is the relevant exposure in large-scale epidemiological studies( Reference Willett and Willett 2 ). Ideally, a subject's usual intake would be measured on each day of the period under study or at least on a large number of days( Reference Illner, Nothlings and Wagner 3 ). However, this is rarely achieved( Reference Willett and Willett 4 ). As such, there are two principles to assess individual usual intake. Firstly, to apply dietary assessment instruments such as an FFQ that is designed to assess the long-term average intake directly by the study participant. Secondly, to apply repeated short-term instruments such as a 24-h dietary recall and to extrapolate this information to usual food intake( Reference Hoffmann, Boeing and Dufour 5 ).

The selection of the appropriate instrument for the assessment of usual food intake in large-scale epidemiological studies depends on the research question. In most epidemiological studies, relative ranking of food and nutrient intake is adequate for determination of correlation or relative risks( Reference Baranowski and Willett 6 ). However, to evaluate the dietary intake of a population in relation to specific dietary recommendations, quantified estimates of the dietary intakes may be required( Reference Thompson, Subar, Coulston, Boushey and Ferruzzi 1 ).

For a long time, cost and logistic issues have led to favour FFQ for large-scale prospective studies, whereas 24-h recalls have mainly been used in surveys( Reference Thompson, Subar, Coulston, Boushey and Ferruzzi 1 , Reference Dodd, Guenther and Freedman 7 ). Both systematic and random errors have been recognised as problems when FFQ are used alone( Reference Rosner, Willett and Spiegelman 8 ). Pooled results from recent validation studies using recovery biomarkers such as doubly labelled water and urinary nitrogen suggested that the impact of FFQ measurement error on total energy and protein intakes was severe( Reference Freedman, Commins and Moler 9 ). This large measurement error may have led to considerable misclassification of participants, and thus may have affected diet–disease estimates. The utility of the FFQ has been questioned and the need for improved dietary assessment techniques has emerged( Reference Boeing 10 Reference Kristal, Peters and Potter 14 ).

The objective of the present paper is to review recent literature on innovative approaches for the improvement of the assessment of usual dietary intake focussing on: (1) the requirements to assess usual intake and (2) the application of innovative approaches in large-scale settings.

Requirements to assess usual intake

With respect to the assessment of usual food intake in large-scale epidemiological studies, new methodologies and innovative technologies depict promising approaches for a more valid estimation of usual intake( Reference Illner, Freisling and Boeing 15 ). New methodologies relate to the principle of collecting dietary intake data such as combining different assessment instruments( Reference Carroll, Midthune and Subar 16 ), while new technologies refer to the collection procedure itself such as the use of mobile phones( Reference Shap, Zhu and Delp 17 ) or web-based applications( Reference Carter, Albar and Morris 18 , Reference Subar, Kirkpatrick and Mittl 19 ).

Innovative technologies for the assessment of usual intake

Technological progress and a significant increase in internet usage in the past years has resulted in the development of a number of innovative technologies for dietary assessment. Different technological strategies are followed to address the challenges in dietary assessment including web-based 24-h recalls, mobile food records or simple closed-ended online questionnaires that assess the food intake of the previous 24 h. To date, a number of literature reviews, each focussing on different new technologies, have been published( Reference Illner, Freisling and Boeing 15 , Reference Lieffers and Hanning 20 Reference Franco, Fallaize and Lovegrove 28 ). The most comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted by Illner et al. in 2012( Reference Illner, Freisling and Boeing 15 ). They classified available tools into six categories: mobile phone-based technologies; personal digital-assistant technologies; interactive computer-based technologies; web-based technologies; camera- and tape-recorder-based technologies; scan- and sensor-based technologies. In the present review, the focus is on web-based instruments and mobile technologies as promising assessment tools in large-scale study settings.

A number of self-administered, web-based 24-h recalls have been developed as illustrated in Table 1. The instruments differ with respect to the number of foods available in the database and the way of collecting information on dietary intake. The myfood24 is an online 24-h dietary assessment tool developed for the application among British adults and adolescents( Reference Carter, Albar and Morris 18 ). So far, it is available for application in the UK with respective national databases. An Australian and a German version are under development( Reference Carter, Hancock and Albar 29 ). The tool can be used for multiple recalls or as a food record. To reduce completion time the myfood24 does not follow the detailed Automated Multiple-Pass Method; however, some aspects are included such as an optional quicklist function, a detailed food search, prompts for commonly forgotten foods and a final review before submission. The UK version of the tool is linked to an extensive database that contains about 40 000 generic and branded food items( Reference Carter, Hancock and Albar 29 ). Food portion images help in choosing the appropriate portion size. The relative validity of the myfood24 against a traditional interviewer-administered recall was tested among British adolescents with strong correlations for energy and most nutrients( Reference Albar, Alwan and Evans 30 ). The automated self-administered 24-h recall, developed by the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), represents a detailed 24-h recall for use in adults and children. It collects and automatically codes dietary intake data, and includes detailed questions about portion sizes and food preparation methods based on the five steps of the state-of-the-art Automated Multiple-Pass Method. The database includes approximately 8000 food items( Reference Subar, Kirkpatrick and Mittl 19 , Reference Zimmerman, Hull and McNutt 31 ). The automated self-administered 24-h recall was compared with traditional interviewer-administered 24-h recalls in a diverse sample of adults aged between 20 and 70 years from three different geographical areas. Equivalent energy intake estimates between the two recall methods were found for men and women( Reference Thompson, Dixit-Joshi and Potischman 32 ). The web-based recall DietDay, which contains 9349 food items assesses information on portion sizes and preparation methods, and was designed for repeated administration( Reference Arab, Wesseling-Perry and Jardack 33 ). The DietDay also applies multiple steps similar to the Automated Multiple-Pass Method approach. The validity of six administrations of DietDay was tested using the doubly labelled water method. The rate of underreporting for energy was on average about 30 %, which is comparable with conventional 24-h recalls( Reference Arab, Tseng and Ang 34 ).

Table 1. Web-based 24-h dietary recall tools for dietary assessment

AMPM, Automated Multiple-Pass Method; ASA24, automated self-administered 24-h recall.

To further reduce demands on time for dietary assessment, the development of abbreviated, web-based, self-administered instruments has been initiated that recall the diet of the previous 24 h, but with a finite list of food items( Reference Liu, Young and Crowe 35 , Reference Freese, Feller and Harttig 36 ). The Oxford WebQ, for instance, has been especially designed for the use in several large-scale prospective studies in the UK( Reference Liu, Young and Crowe 35 , Reference Galante, Adamska and Young 37 ). The instrument is closed-ended like an FFQ, but is intended to be administered at multiple time points in a study similar to a 24-h recall. It obtains information on consumption amounts of twenty-one food groups. Median time for self-completion is 12·5 min. Nutrient intakes are calculated automatically and stored in a secure database. Compared with an interviewer-administered 24-h recall, the Oxford WebQ provided similar mean estimates of energy and nutrient intakes and study participants were reasonably well ranked( Reference Liu, Young and Crowe 35 ). Recently, it was shown that 66 % of UK Biobank participants completed the questionnaire more than once( Reference Galante, Adamska and Young 37 ). The 24-h food list has been developed for use in the German National Cohort( Reference Freese, Feller and Harttig 36 , 38 ). It is by definition intended to be used in a combined approach with an FFQ and not as stand-alone instrument. The tool includes a total of 246 food items. Consumption of food items during the previous day is assessed dichotomously (yes/no). In a feasibility study with 505 participants, median completion time was 9 min and the majority of study participants completed the tool three times.

Mobile phones have a variety of technological features that are promising to facilitate dietary assessment( Reference Sharp and Allman-Farinelli 22 ). This technology is mainly used for real-time recording of food intake due to the advantage of portability( Reference Illner, Freisling and Boeing 15 , Reference Carter, Burley and Nykjaer 39 ). Smartphone applications (app) have been developed allowing self-monitoring of food and beverage intake( Reference Franco, Fallaize and Lovegrove 28 , Reference Carter, Burley and Nykjaer 39 , Reference Rangan, Tieleman and Louie 40 ). Intake data can be directly transferred to nutrient output for subsequent analysis. The electronic Dietary Intake Assessment app was developed for use in Australia as a weighed or estimated food record( Reference Rangan, Tieleman and Louie 40 , Reference Rangan, O'Connor and Giannelli 41 ). Its relative validity to measure nutrient and food group intakes was tested against repeated 24-h recalls. While a good agreement was found on the group level, large variability of reported intakes at the individual level was observed. Similar results have been observed for the My Meal Mate app, an electronic food record app that was developed to facilitate weight loss( Reference Carter, Burley and Nykjaer 39 ).

Another promising feature of smartphone-based dietary assessment is the possibility to take pictures of food and beverages( Reference Gemming, Utter and Ni Mhurchu 25 ). Here, collected data can either be analysed afterwards by trained dietitians or automatically( Reference Sharp and Allman-Farinelli 22 ). Using for example the remote food photography method, study participants sent images to a server, which were then analysed to estimate food intake( Reference Martin, Nicklas and Gunturk 42 ). Further features of this technology include a semi-automated procedure to estimate portion sizes and an automatic identification of foods via bar code scanning. Compared with doubly labelled water, the remote food photography method did not significantly over- or underestimate energy intake( Reference Martin, Correa and Han 43 ). The mobile device food record is a fully automated food photograph analysis tool that analyses type and amount of foods( Reference Daugherty, Schap and Ettienne-Gittens 44 ). Users capture images of their foods and beverages before and after eating. A fiducial marker has to be included in the picture to estimate the amount consumed. However, the method overestimated energy intake when compared with laboratory weighed foods in adolescents( Reference Lee, Chae and Schap 45 ).

Innovation in statistical methods for the estimation of usual intake

Various statistical methods for the estimation of usual dietary intake with focus on intake distributions have been proposed( Reference Slob 46 Reference Dekkers, Verkaik-Kloosterman and van Rossum 58 ). The majority of these methods have been developed for the use in dietary surveys or risk analysis. Following a similar general approach, the methods use data that assess dietary intake on at least two independent days for each subject (e.g. repeated 24-h recalls). Statistical modelling considers the naturally occurring day-to-day variability by removing the so called within-person variation from the total variation( Reference Hoffmann, Boeing and Dufour 5 , Reference Laureano, Torman and Crispim 59 ).

To consider a statistical method suitable for the estimation of diet–health relationships, it must enable the estimation of individual usual dietary intake and not only intake distributions. Moreover, the method has to be able to estimate individual intake from both daily and episodically or rarely consumed foods. In this regard, two more recently developed methods are of particular interest, also with respect to large-scale prospective studies: the NCI Method( Reference Tooze, Midthune and Dodd 54 Reference Tooze, Kipnis and Buckman 56 ), and the Multiple Source Method (MSM)( Reference Haubrock, Nothlings and Volatier 57 , Reference Harttig, Haubrock and Knuppel 60 ). The NCI Method has been implemented with SAS macros (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The MSM was developed for use in Europe and is available through an online interface.

Both methods follow a two-step approach( Reference Tooze, Midthune and Dodd 54 , Reference Haubrock, Nothlings and Volatier 57 , Reference Laureano, Torman and Crispim 59 , Reference Souverein, Dekkers and Geelen 61 ). In the first part, the probability of consumption is estimated using a logistic regression model. The second part includes an estimation of the amount consumed and is restricted to observed positive intakes on the 24-h recalls. Firstly, a transformation step is used to obtain normally distributed data. Next, mean usual intake and between- and within-person variance on the transformed scale are estimated. The last step eliminates the within-person variance and the results are back-transformed to the original scale. Finally, the two model parts are combined to obtain the individual usual intake by multiplying the probability of consumption and the average consumption-day amount. For daily consumed foods, only the second part of the model is of relevance.

The statistical methods allow the inclusion of covariates such as age, sex or BMI in both parts of the model to represent the effect of personal characteristics. This is important as studies showed that sociodemographic factors such as education( Reference Worsley, Blasche and Ball 62 ), family status( Reference Billson, Pryer and Nichols 63 ) and income( Reference Worsley, Blasche and Ball 64 ) are associated with food consumption. More recently, the combined impact of eight different determinants of the consumption-day amount was analysed using state-of-the-art variable selection procedures. It was shown that sex, age and smoking status were the most relevant determinants of food intake in a representative German population( Reference Freese, Pricop-Jeckstadt and Heuer 65 ).

The 24-h dietary recall is limited in adequately measuring usual intake of foods or nutrients that are not consumed daily( Reference Subar, Dodd and Guenther 66 ). Even with two administrations of 24-h recalls, the probability of consumption for most foods and nutrients is poorly captured at the individual level. This has led to the extension of the statistical procedures by implementing a combined use of both repeated 24-h recalls and FFQ( Reference Tooze, Midthune and Dodd 54 , Reference Haubrock, Nothlings and Volatier 57 , Reference Subar, Dodd and Guenther 66 ). The FFQ assesses the probability of consumption, queried as frequency of usual intake over a specified period of time, and thus, levels out the weakness of the 24-h recall method. These reported FFQ frequencies can be used as a covariate in both parts of the statistical model to enhance the estimation of usual intakes from 24-h recall data. For the MSM, FFQ information can further be used to identify true non-consumers. In this approach, study participants who reported non-consumption of a certain food item or food group within the FFQ and did not report consumption of this food in the 24-h recall are defined as true non-consumers. Here, the probability of consumption as well as the consumption-day amount is set to zero. It has been suggested that this approach of combining instruments may provide high-quality dietary information, especially for the assessment of foods that are not consumed every day( Reference Carroll, Midthune and Subar 16 , Reference Kipnis, Midthune and Buckman 55 , Reference Haubrock, Nothlings and Volatier 57 , Reference Subar, Dodd and Guenther 66 ).

Simulation studies were conducted to compare the performance of different statistical methods, including the MSM and NCI Method( Reference Laureano, Torman and Crispim 59 , Reference Souverein, Dekkers and Geelen 61 ). These studies concluded that the overall performance of methods was similar. However, a small sample size or large within- and between-person variances might lead to inaccurate estimates. Ultimately, practical reasons such as availability of statistical programs or user-friendliness play a major role in choosing one method over the other.

For Germany, it was recently proposed to use a short 24-h food list to assess the probability of consumption complemented by person-specific standard consumption-day amounts derived from national nutrition survey data instead of individual amounts( Reference Freese, Feller and Harttig 36 , Reference Freese, Pricop-Jeckstadt and Heuer 65 ). Thus, the two parts of the statistical model (i.e. (1) estimation of consumption probability and (2) consumption-day amount) are separated as illustrated in Fig. 1. This approach is backed by the insight that the consumption frequency contributes more to the between-person variation than does variation in portion size( Reference Noethlings, Hoffmann and Bergmann 67 ). Information from an FFQ is added to provide information on true non-consumption and on frequency of consumption of rarely consumed foods. The 24-h food list was designed to have a simple structure and a rapid completion time to facilitate multiple administrations in large-scale settings.

Fig. 1. Proposed dietary assessment and statistical method to derive individual usual dietary intake in the German National Cohort( Reference Freese, Feller and Harttig 36 , Reference Freese, Pricop-Jeckstadt and Heuer 65 ). 24-h DR, 24-h dietary recall; 24-h FL, 24-h food list.

Application of innovative approaches in large-scale settings

New technologies offer several potential advantages in large-scale dietary assessments, and therefore, innovative tools may be superior to conventional detailed assessment methods for data collection( Reference Schatzkin, Subar and Moore 11 , Reference Illner, Freisling and Boeing 15 , Reference Ngo, Engelen and Molag 68 ). Firstly, time for data coding can be reduced as data are immediately stored. Moreover, most tools have the capacity to directly compute nutrient and food group intakes. Secondly, new technologies allow self-administered application, which is promising in terms of cost reduction. Thirdly, data can be collected at a time and location that is convenient for the study participant. Thus, compliance may be increased and multiple administrations may be more feasible compared with conventional instruments. This is even more important knowing that multiple administrations of 24-h dietary recalls in combination with an FFQ would be ideal for the assessment of individual usual intake. With traditional instruments, this has been impractical in large-scale settings( Reference Schatzkin, Subar and Moore 11 ).

Thus, a promising direction for the valid estimation of individual usual dietary intake in large-scale settings is the integration of innovative statistical methods and new technologies. A number of tools are available as previously described. Web-based dietary recalls can easily be used instead of traditional methods as suggested by Carroll et al.( Reference Carroll, Midthune and Subar 16 ). Mobile food records might also substitute 24-h recalls as dietary assessment instrument. However, smartphone applications for self-monitored dietary intake are limited in accurately measuring food intake on the individual level( Reference Carter, Burley and Nykjaer 39 Reference Rangan, O'Connor and Giannelli 41 ), and further research is needed to achieve better validity. Image-based food records are also promising in terms of reducing participant's burden. To be implemented in large-scale settings, automated methods would be superior to methods that need input from a human observer. Clearly, more research is needed to improve the accuracy and reliability of available methods( Reference Sharp and Allman-Farinelli 22 ). Also, adaptations of statistical methods seem to be feasible when using simplified assessment tools such as the 24-h food list. However, further research is needed with respect to data analysis.

To be integrated into statistical methods, technologies need to qualify for repeated administration. To date, it is unclear how many administrations of a dietary recall or record can be reasonably expected to be completed without impairment of data quality( Reference Carroll, Midthune and Subar 16 ). One study found a high compliance (92 %) for completion of eight non-consecutive automated 24-h recalls( Reference Arab, Wesseling-Perry and Jardack 33 ). With each additional recall, however, a decline in mean energy estimates was observed. There appears to be a point in time at which the gain in accuracy due to multiple administrations is offset by loss of participants due to the high burden( Reference Carroll, Midthune and Subar 16 ). Available statistical methods require at least two independent consumption days to estimate individual usual intake.

Conclusion

New statistical methodologies and innovative technologies are promising approaches to improve the estimation of usual dietary intake in large-scale epidemiological studies. Innovative statistical methods such as the MSM or NCI Method are available and can be applied in analyses of diet–health relationships. A combination of different dietary assessment instruments such as repeated 24-h recalls and FFQ is recommended. New technologies offer several advantages compared with traditional instruments and qualify for integration into available statistical methods. Although the performance of new technologies has been investigated extensively, more research is needed in regard to the validity of those instruments. Implications of self-administration (e.g. regarding food lists, search algorithms or reporting accuracy) and related problems need to be evaluated. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the availability of population specific assessment instruments as not all countries have own tools and statistical methods available. With respect to combined assessment strategies integrated into statistical modelling, more evidence from biomarker validation studies is needed.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the German Nutrition Society for support.

Financial Support

Part of this work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research which funded the PhD position of J. C. (grant number 01ER1001H). Further, this work was supported by the Diet-Body-Brain Competence Cluster in Nutrition Research funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 01EA1410A). The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Authorship

J. C. drafted the manuscript. U. N. critically evaluated the manuscript. Both the authors approved the final version.

References

1. Thompson, FE & Subar, AF (2013) Dietary assessment methodology. In Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease, pp. 546 [Coulston, AM, Boushey, CJ and Ferruzzi, MG, editors]. USA: Elsevier Inc.Google Scholar
2. Willett, W (2013) Food frequency methods. In Nutritional Epidemiology – Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 3rd ed., pp. 7095 [Willett, W, editor]. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
3. Illner, AK, Nothlings, U, Wagner, K et al. (2010) The assessment of individual usual food intake in large-scale prospective studies. Ann Nutr Metab 56, 99105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Willett, W (2013) Nature of variation in diet. In Nutritional Epidemiology – Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 3rd ed., pp. 3448 [Willett, W, editor]. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
5. Hoffmann, K, Boeing, H, Dufour, A et al. (2002) Estimating the distribution of usual dietary intake by short-term measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr 56, Suppl. 2, S53S62.Google Scholar
6. Baranowski, T (2013) 24-hour dietary recall and food record methods. In Nutritional Epidemiology – Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 3rd ed., pp. 4969 [Willett, W, editor]. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
7. Dodd, KW, Guenther, PM, Freedman, LS et al. (2006) Statistical methods for estimating usual intake of nutrients and foods: a review of the theory. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 16401650.Google Scholar
8. Rosner, B, Willett, WC & Spiegelman, D (1989) Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error. Stat Med 8, 10511069.Google Scholar
9. Freedman, LS, Commins, JM, Moler, JE et al. (2014) Pooled results from 5 validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers for energy and protein intake. Am J Epidemiol 180, 172188.Google Scholar
10. Boeing, H (2013) Nutritional epidemiology: new perspectives for understanding the diet-disease relationship? Eur J Clin Nutr 67, 424429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Schatzkin, A, Subar, AF, Moore, S et al. (2009) Observational epidemiologic studies of nutrition and cancer: the next generation (with better observation). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18, 10261032.Google Scholar
12. Willett, WC & Hu, FB (2006) Not the time to abandon the food frequency questionnaire: point. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15, 17571758.Google Scholar
13. Kristal, AR & Potter, JD (2006) Not the time to abandon the food frequency questionnaire: counterpoint. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15, 17591760.Google Scholar
14. Kristal, AR, Peters, U & Potter, JD (2005) Is it time to abandon the food frequency questionnaire? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14, 28262828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Illner, AK, Freisling, H, Boeing, H et al. (2012) Review and evaluation of innovative technologies for measuring diet in nutritional epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 41, 11871203.Google Scholar
16. Carroll, RJ, Midthune, D, Subar, AF et al. (2012) Taking advantage of the strengths of 2 different dietary assessment instruments to improve intake estimates for nutritional epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 175, 340347.Google Scholar
17. Shap, TE, Zhu, F, Delp, EJ et al. (2014) Merging dietary assessment with the adolescent lifestyle. J Hum Nutr Diet 27, Suppl. 1, 3288.Google Scholar
18. Carter, MC, Albar, SA, Morris, MA et al. (2015) Development of a UK Online 24-h Dietary Assessment Tool: myfood24. Nutrients 7, 40164032.Google Scholar
19. Subar, AF, Kirkpatrick, SI, Mittl, B et al. (2012) The automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24): a resource for researchers, clinicians, and educators from the National Cancer Institute. J Acad Nutr Diet 112, 11341137.Google Scholar
20. Lieffers, JR & Hanning, RM (2012) Dietary assessment and self-monitoring with nutrition applications for mobile devices. Can J Diet Pract Res 73, e253260.Google Scholar
21. Stumbo, PJ (2013) New technology in dietary assessment: a review of digital methods in improving food record accuracy. Proc Nutr Soc 72, 7076.Google Scholar
22. Sharp, DB & Allman-Farinelli, M (2014) Feasibility and validity of mobile phones to assess dietary intake. Nutrition 30, 12571266.Google Scholar
23. Shim, JS, Oh, K & Kim, HC (2014) Dietary assessment methods in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiol Health 36, e2014009.Google Scholar
24. Storey, KE (2015) A changing landscape: web-based methods for dietary assessment in adolescents. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 18, 437445.Google Scholar
25. Gemming, L, Utter, J & Ni Mhurchu, C (2015) Image-assisted dietary assessment: a systematic review of the evidence. J Acad Nutr Diet 115, 6477.Google Scholar
26. Arens-Volland, AG, Spassova, L & Bohn, T (2015) Promising approaches of computer-supported dietary assessment and management-current research status and available applications. Int J Med Inform 84, 9971008.Google Scholar
27. Forster, H, Walsh, MC, Gibney, MJ et al. (2016) Personalised nutrition: the role of new dietary assessment methods. Proc Nutr Soc 75, 96105.Google Scholar
28. Franco, RZ, Fallaize, R, Lovegrove, JA et al. (2016) Popular nutrition-related mobile apps: a feature assessment. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 4, e85.Google Scholar
29. Carter, MC, Hancock, N, Albar, SA et al. (2016) Development of a new branded UK food composition database for an online dietary assessment tool. Nutrients 8, 480.Google Scholar
30. Albar, SA, Alwan, NA, Evans, CE et al. (2016) Agreement between an online dietary assessment tool (myfood24) and an interviewer-administered 24-h dietary recall in British adolescents aged 11–18 years. Br J Nutr 115, 16781686.Google Scholar
31. Zimmerman, TP, Hull, SG, McNutt, S et al. (2009) Challenges in converting an interviewer-administered food probe database to self-administration in the National Cancer Institute Automated Self-administered 24-Hour Recall (ASA24). J Food Compost Anal 22, S48S51.Google Scholar
32. Thompson, FE, Dixit-Joshi, S, Potischman, N et al. (2015) Comparison of interviewer-administered and automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recalls in 3 diverse integrated health systems. Am J Epidemiol 181, 970978.Google Scholar
33. Arab, L, Wesseling-Perry, K, Jardack, P et al. (2010) Eight self-administered 24-hour dietary recalls using the Internet are feasible in African Americans and Whites: the energetics study. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 857864.Google Scholar
34. Arab, L, Tseng, CH, Ang, A et al. (2011) Validity of a multipass, web-based, 24-hour self-administered recall for assessment of total energy intake in blacks and whites. Am J Epidemiol 174, 12561265.Google Scholar
35. Liu, B, Young, H, Crowe, FL et al. (2011) Development and evaluation of the Oxford WebQ, a low-cost, web-based method for assessment of previous 24 h dietary intakes in large-scale prospective studies. Public Health Nutr 14, 19982005.Google Scholar
36. Freese, J, Feller, S, Harttig, U et al. (2014) Development and evaluation of a short 24-h food list as part of a blended dietary assessment strategy in large-scale cohort studies. Eur J Clin Nutr 68, 324329.Google Scholar
37. Galante, J, Adamska, L, Young, A et al. (2016) The acceptability of repeat Internet-based hybrid diet assessment of previous 24-h dietary intake: administration of the Oxford WebQ in UK Biobank. Br J Nutr 115, 681686.Google Scholar
38. German National Cohort C (2014) The German National Cohort: aims, study design and organization. Eur J Epidemiol 29, 371382.Google Scholar
39. Carter, MC, Burley, VJ, Nykjaer, C et al. (2013) ‘My Meal Mate’ (MMM): validation of the diet measures captured on a smartphone application to facilitate weight loss. Br J Nutr 109, 539546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Rangan, AM, Tieleman, L, Louie, JC et al. (2016) Electronic dietary intake assessment (e-DIA): relative validity of a mobile phone application to measure intake of food groups. Br J Nutr 115, 22192226.Google Scholar
41. Rangan, AM, O'Connor, S, Giannelli, V et al. (2015) Electronic dietary intake assessment (e-DIA): comparison of a mobile phone digital entry app for dietary data collection with 24-hour dietary recalls. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 3, e98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Martin, CK, Nicklas, T, Gunturk, B et al. (2014) Measuring food intake with digital photography. J Hum Nutr Diet 27, Suppl. 1, 7281.Google Scholar
43. Martin, CK, Correa, JB, Han, H et al. (2012) Validity of the remote food photography method (RFPM) for estimating energy and nutrient intake in near real-time. Obesity 20, 891899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Daugherty, BL, Schap, TE, Ettienne-Gittens, R et al. (2012) Novel technologies for assessing dietary intake: evaluating the usability of a mobile telephone food record among adults and adolescents. J Med Internet Res 14, e58.Google Scholar
45. Lee, CD, Chae, J, Schap, TE et al. (2012) Comparison of known food weights with image-based portion-size automated estimation and adolescents’ self-reported portion size. J Diab Sci Technol 6, 428434.Google Scholar
46. Slob, W (1993) Modeling long-term exposure of the whole population to chemicals in food. Risk Anal 13, 525530.Google Scholar
47. Wallace, LA, Duan, N & Ziegenfus, R (1994) Can long-term exposure distributions be predicted from short-term measurements? Risk Anal 14, 7585.Google Scholar
48. Buck, RJ, Hammerstrom, KA & Ryan, PB (1995) Estimating long-term exposures from short-term measurements. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5, 359373.Google Scholar
49. Nusser, SM, Carriquiry, AL, Dodd, KW et al. (1996) A semiparametric transformation approach to estimating usual daily intake distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 91, 14401449.Google Scholar
50. Guenther, PM, Kott, PS & Carriquiry, AL (1997) Development of an approach for estimating usual nutrient intake distributions at the population level. J Nutr 127, 11061112.Google Scholar
51. Gay, C (2000) Estimation of population distributions of habitual nutrient intake based on a short-run weighed food diary. Br J Nutr 83, 287293.Google Scholar
52. Chang, HY, Suchindran, CM & Pan, WH (2001) Using the overdispersed exponential family to estimate the distribution of usual daily intakes of people aged between 18 and 28 in Taiwan. Stat Med 20, 23372350.Google Scholar
53. Slob, W (2006) Probabilistic dietary exposure assessment taking into account variability in both amount and frequency of consumption. Food Chem Toxicol 44, 933951.Google Scholar
54. Tooze, JA, Midthune, D, Dodd, KW et al. (2006) A new statistical method for estimating the usual intake of episodically consumed foods with application to their distribution. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 15751587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55. Kipnis, V, Midthune, D, Buckman, DW et al. (2009) Modeling data with excess zeros and measurement error: application to evaluating relationships between episodically consumed foods and health outcomes. Biometrics 65, 10031010.Google Scholar
56. Tooze, JA, Kipnis, V, Buckman, DW et al. (2010) A mixed-effects model approach for estimating the distribution of usual intake of nutrients: the NCI method. Stat Med 29, 28572868.Google Scholar
57. Haubrock, J, Nothlings, U, Volatier, JL et al. (2011) Estimating usual food intake distributions by using the multiple source method in the EPIC-Potsdam Calibration Study. J Nutr 141, 914920.Google Scholar
58. Dekkers, AL, Verkaik-Kloosterman, J, van Rossum, CT et al. (2014) SPADE, a new statistical program to estimate habitual dietary intake from multiple food sources and dietary supplements. J Nutr 144, 20832091.Google Scholar
59. Laureano, GH, Torman, VB, Crispim, SP et al. (2016) Comparison of the ISU, NCI, MSM, and SPADE methods for estimating usual intake: a simulation study of nutrients consumed daily. Nutrients 8, 166.Google Scholar
60. Harttig, U, Haubrock, J, Knuppel, S et al. (2011) The MSM program: web-based statistics package for estimating usual dietary intake using the Multiple Source Method. Eur J Clin Nutr 65, Suppl. 1, S8791.Google Scholar
61. Souverein, OW, Dekkers, AL, Geelen, A et al. (2011) Comparing four methods to estimate usual intake distributions. Eur J Clin Nutr 65, Suppl. 1, S92101.Google Scholar
62. Worsley, A, Blasche, R, Ball, K et al. (2004) The relationship between education and food consumption in the 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey. Public Health Nutr 7, 649663.Google Scholar
63. Billson, H, Pryer, JA & Nichols, R (1999) Variation in fruit and vegetable consumption among adults in Britain. An analysis from the dietary and nutritional survey of British adults. Eur J Clin Nutr 53, 946952.Google Scholar
64. Worsley, A, Blasche, R, Ball, K et al. (2003) Income differences in food consumption in the 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey. Eur J Clin Nutr 57, 11981211.Google Scholar
65. Freese, J, Pricop-Jeckstadt, M, Heuer, T et al. (2016) Determinants of consumption-day amounts applicable for the estimation of usual dietary intake with a short 24-h food list. J Nutr Sci 5(e35), 16.Google Scholar
66. Subar, AF, Dodd, KW, Guenther, PM et al. (2006) The food propensity questionnaire: concept, development, and validation for use as a covariate in a model to estimate usual food intake. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 15561563.Google Scholar
67. Noethlings, U, Hoffmann, K, Bergmann, MM et al. (2003) Portion size adds limited information on variance in food intake of participants in the EPIC-Potsdam study. J Nutr 133, 510515.Google Scholar
68. Ngo, J, Engelen, A, Molag, M et al. (2009) A review of the use of information and communication technologies for dietary assessment. Br J Nutr 101, Suppl. 2, S102112.Google Scholar
69. Bradley, J, Simpson, E, Poliakov, I et al. (2016) Comparison of INTAKE24 (an Online 24-h Dietary Recall Tool) with interviewer-led 24-h recall in 11–24 year-old. Nutrients 8, 358.Google Scholar
70. Lassale, C, Castetbon, K, Laporte, F et al. (2015) Validation of a Web-based, self-administered, non-consecutive-day dietary record tool against urinary biomarkers. Br J Nutr 113, 953962.Google Scholar
71. Touvier, M, Kesse-Guyot, E, Mejean, C et al. (2010) Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies. Br J Nutr 105, 10551064.Google Scholar
72. Diep, CS, Hingle, M, Chen, TA et al. (2015) The automated self-administered 24-hour dietary recall for children, 2012 version, for youth aged 9 to 11 years: a validation study. J Acad Nutr Diet 115, 15911598.Google Scholar
73. Kirkpatrick, SI, Subar, AF, Douglass, D et al. (2014) Performance of the automated self-administered 24-hour recall relative to a measure of true intakes and to an interviewer-administered 24-h recall. Am J Clin Nutr 100, 233240.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Web-based 24-h dietary recall tools for dietary assessment

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Proposed dietary assessment and statistical method to derive individual usual dietary intake in the German National Cohort(36,65). 24-h DR, 24-h dietary recall; 24-h FL, 24-h food list.