2019
DOI: 10.1155/2019/9750538
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Mean-Based and Quantile Regression Methods for Analyzing Self-Report Dietary Intake Data

Abstract: In mean-based approaches to dietary data analysis, it is possible for potentially important associations at the tails of the intake distribution, where inadequacy or excess is greatest, to be obscured due to unobserved heterogeneity. Participants in the upper or lower tails of dietary intake data will potentially have the greatest change in their behavior when presented with a health behavior intervention; thus, alternative statistical methods to modeling these relationships are needed to fully describe the im… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These results will be reported graphically and/or in tables that also show, for comparison, the mean TEAM intervention effect estimate across all quantiles returned from a similarly constructed linear mixed-effect model. 35 , 40 , 41 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These results will be reported graphically and/or in tables that also show, for comparison, the mean TEAM intervention effect estimate across all quantiles returned from a similarly constructed linear mixed-effect model. 35 , 40 , 41 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These results will be reported graphically and/ or in tables that also show, for comparison, the mean TEAM intervention effect estimate across all quantiles returned from a similarly constructed linear mixed-effect model. 35,40,41 Results at each research site. The differential primary outcome according to randomised treatment group will be tabulated according to research site.…”
Section: Sensitivity Analyses Of the Primary Outcomementioning
confidence: 99%