Discrepancies between validated and selected dietary exposures for association analysis: a meta-research study of cohorts examining diet-cardiovascular disease associations

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain a leading cause of death, with diet as a key modifiable risk factor. While prospective cohort studies using food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) underpin dietary guidelines, FFQs are prone to measurement errors that typically attenuate true associations. Characterizing the degree of error through validation is essential to properly interpret and adjust observed diet-disease relationships. It remains unclear whether FFQ validation evidence adequately supports the specific dietary exposures analyzed in recent CVD research. Therefore, this meta-research study aimed to evaluate this gap by examining discrepancies between validated dietary factors and those used in association analyses. A systematic search of multiple databases identified cohort studies published between 2019 and 2024 using keywords related to cohort studies, CVDs, and FFQs (PROSPERO: CRD42024589050). The proportion of cohorts with discrepancies was examined, defined as cases in which the dietary variables examined in association analyses lacked direct validation in the referenced FFQ validation paper. A total of 298 cohort studies from over 50 countries were included, with 88.3% using validated FFQs (against reference methods such as 24-hour dietary recalls, dietary records or biomarkers) for dietary assessment. A total of 93 unique validation papers were referenced across all included studies. However, at the acceptable correlation threshold (r > 0.3), discrepancies were identified in 80.6% of studies, indicating that the dietary variables examined in association analyses lacked direct validation in the referenced FFQ validation paper. Correlation analysis was the most commonly used validation metric (92.5% of validation studies), with 41.9% relying solely on correlation analyses. This research highlighted a significant FFQ validation gap in diet-CVD association research. Future research should clearly report FFQ validation metrics, especially de-attenuated correlation coefficients, and ensure that the dietary exposures of interest are covered in the referenced validation study. For dietary pattern studies, whenever feasible, researchers should directly validate dietary pattern scores against reference methods, so that these assessments are supported by direct evidence of validity. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42024589050.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-026-01445-8
Primary Topic
Nutritional Studies and Diet
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Discrepancies between validated and selected dietary exposures for association analysis: a meta-research study of cohorts examining diet-cardiovascular disease associations

Jimmy Chun Yu Louie, Gebretsadkan Gebremedhin Gebretsadik, Kenneth Ka-Hei Lo, Pooja Panchal et al.
European Journal of Epidemiology
Nutritional Studies and Diet
article

Discrepancies between validated and selected dietary exposures for association analysis: a meta-research study of cohorts examining diet-cardiovascular disease associations

Jimmy Chun Yu Louie, Gebretsadkan Gebremedhin Gebretsadik, Kenneth Ka-Hei Lo, Pooja Panchal, Daniel Mok, Vicky Wai Ki Chan
article en

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain a leading cause of death, with diet as a key modifiable risk factor. While prospective cohort studies using food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) underpin dietary guidelines, FFQs are prone to measurement errors that typically attenuate true associations. Characterizing the degree of error through validation is essential to properly interpret and adjust observed diet-disease relationships. It remains unclear whether FFQ validation evidence adequately supports the specific dietary exposures analyzed in recent CVD research. Therefore, this meta-research study aimed to evaluate this gap by examining discrepancies between validated dietary factors and those used in association analyses. A systematic search of multiple databases identified cohort studies published between 2019 and 2024 using keywords related to cohort studies, CVDs, and FFQs (PROSPERO: CRD42024589050). The proportion of cohorts with discrepancies was examined, defined as cases in which the dietary variables examined in association analyses lacked direct validation in the referenced FFQ validation paper. A total of 298 cohort studies from over 50 countries were included, with 88.3% using validated FFQs (against reference methods such as 24-hour dietary recalls, dietary records or biomarkers) for dietary assessment. A total of 93 unique validation papers were referenced across all included studies. However, at the acceptable correlation threshold (r > 0.3), discrepancies were identified in 80.6% of studies, indicating that the dietary variables examined in association analyses lacked direct validation in the referenced FFQ validation paper. Correlation analysis was the most commonly used validation metric (92.5% of validation studies), with 41.9% relying solely on correlation analyses. This research highlighted a significant FFQ validation gap in diet-CVD association research. Future research should clearly report FFQ validation metrics, especially de-attenuated correlation coefficients, and ensure that the dietary exposures of interest are covered in the referenced validation study. For dietary pattern studies, whenever feasible, researchers should directly validate dietary pattern scores against reference methods, so that these assessments are supported by direct evidence of validity. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42024589050.

European Journal of Epidemiology
Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK), Symbiosis International University (IN), Swinburne University of Technology (AU), Mekelle University (ET)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Nutritional Studies and Diet
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.