Back

Leveraging questionnaire-based physical activity levels (PAL) to identify energy intake misreporting in the Goldberg method: A doubly-labeled water validation study

Neilson, H. K.; Asgari, S.; Kopciuk, K. A.; Tooze, J. A.; Khandwala, F.; Koushik, A.; Rabasa-Lhoret, R.; Csizmadi, I.

2025-04-04 nutrition
10.1101/2025.04.02.25325112 medRxiv
Show abstract

The Goldberg method has been suggested for identifying energy intake (EI) under-reporting in nutritional epidemiology. Its implementation, however, is limited by challenges associated with estimating physical activity levels (PAL). We quantified the accuracy of the Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire (STAR-Q) derived PAL (PALSTAR-Q) combined with the Goldberg method (Goldberg-PALSTARQ) to identify EI misreporting as compared with doubly labeled water (DLW) derived total energy expenditure (TEEDLW). Between 2009 and 2011, 99 men and women completed a two-week DLW protocol, a food frequency questionnaire, and the STAR-Q. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of the Goldberg-PALSTAR-Q were determined. Fifty-eight percent of men and women were classified as under-reporters by Goldberg-PALSTAR-Q compared with 60% of men and 56% of women by TEEDLW. Among men, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy and 95% confidence intervals were 88% (68%-97%), 87% (61%-98%), 91% (72%-99%), 81% (56%-94%), and 87% (72%-95%), respectively; and among women 79% (62%-90%), 69% (50%-84%), 77% (60%-88%), 72% (52%-86%), and 75% (62%-84%), respectively. Validated individual level PALs used with the Goldberg method can be informative in sensitivity analyses to gain insight into EI misreporting in nutritional epidemiology studies lacking in objective EI measures.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
2
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
3
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.3%
6
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 23%
4.9%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
9
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.1%
10
Bone
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
12
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
13
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
14
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
15
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
16
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
17
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
18
International Journal of Obesity
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
19
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
20
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
21
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
22
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%