OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation of four technology-assisted dietary assessment methods relative to true intake across breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
METHODS: In a controlled feeding study with a crossover design, 152 participants (55% women; mean age 32y (SD 11); mean BMI 26 kg/m2 (SD 5)) were randomized to one of three separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods and beverages consumed. Participants undertook a 24HR the following day (Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool-Australia© (ASA24); Intake24-Australia©; mobile Food Record™ - Trained Analyst (mFR-TA); or Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour recall (IA-24HR)). When assigned to IA-24HR, participants referred to images captured of their meals using the mobile Food Record™ app. True and estimated energy and nutrient intakes were compared, and differences among methods were assessed using linear mixed models.
RESULTS: The mean difference between true and estimated energy intake as a percentage of true intake was 5.4% (95% CI 0.6, 10.2) using ASA24, 1.7% (95% CI -2.9, 6.3) using Intake24, 1.3% (95% CI -1.1, 3.8) using mFR-TA, and 15.0% (95% CI 11.6, 18.3) using IA-24HR. The variances of estimated and true energy intakes were statistically significantly different for all methods (P<0.01), apart from Intake 24 (P=0.1). Differential accuracy in nutrient estimation was present among the methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Under controlled conditions, Intake24, ASA24, and mFR-TA estimated average energy and nutrient intakes with reasonable validity, but intake distributions were estimated accurately by Intake24 only (energy and protein). This study may inform considerations regarding instruments of choice in future population surveillance.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number ACTRN12621000209897; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=381165&isReview=true.
METHODS: The initial 11-factor and 132-item AEEMI was distributed to 1930 pre-clinical and clinical year medical students from 11 medical schools in Malaysia. The study examined the construct validity of the AEEMI using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
RESULTS: The best-fit model of AEEMI was achieved using 5 factors and 26 items (χ 2 = 3300.71 (df = 1680), P
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of sporadic young-onset CRC over 11 years from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2017 in Kelantan. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks were immunohistochemically stained with antibodies for MMR (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and BRAF V600E. These expressions were correlated with clinicopathological parameters.
Results: Our patient sample included 31 patients with a mean age of 31.5 years. More than half (61.3%) of the patients were women. The majority presented with abdominal pain (41.9%), and 71.0% had a tumor located on the right side of the colon, with 83.9% being moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. The majority of patients presented at stage IV (54.8%). The most frequent pattern was all MMR protein expressions, which constituted patients in the microsatellite stable group (64.5%). Nine (29.0%) were microsatellite instability (MSI-high), and two (6.5%) were MSI-low. Positive BRAF V600E expression was observed in 83.9% of patients. Only histopathological subtypes revealed a significant association with BRAF V600E positive expression (p = 0.015).
Conclusions: The majority of sporadic young-onset CRC presented with abdominal pain and advanced cancer stage. Most were microsatellite stable, and most cases showed positive expressions in all MMR markers and BRAF V600E by immunohistochemistry method. This finding will pave the way for further research on this disease.