Research

Mixed

Failure to correct for measurement error in dietary assessment variables (saturated fat, calories, alcohol) biases relative risk estimates toward the null, potentially masking true associations between diet and disease outcomes.

When interpreting nutritional studies, be aware that self-reported diet data often underestimates the true strength of a diet-disease link due to measurement error. Researchers use statistical corrections to adjust these numbers; if a study reports a 'corrected' risk, it is likely a more accurate reflection of reality than the raw data. For individuals, this means a lack of statistical significance in a single study regarding a specific nutrient (like saturated fat) might be due to measurement noise rather than a true lack of effect, though this specific study found no important effect of saturated fat even after correction.

GoodQualifiesHIGH confidence
These results indicate that the failure to find a substantial positive association between breast cancer risk and saturated fat intake cannot be explained by measurement error in fat, calories, or alcohol.
Bernard Rosner et al. · American Journal of Epidemiology · 1990

Why this rating

High-quality statistical methodology applied to a large prospective cohort (Nurses' Health Study) with a validation substudy.

Source

CORRECTION OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION RELATIVE RISK ESTIMATES AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR: THE CASE OF MULTIPLE COVARIATES MEASURED WITH ERROR

Bernard Rosner et al. · American Journal of Epidemiology · 1990

DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115715

cohort · n=89538Cited 465×
Read the paper
DOI resolved against Crossref · corpus check 2026-06-10

This is one finding among thousands. Every one is graded and traced to its source, so you can see what the evidence actually supports. Browse the research →