Observational analysis revealed reasonable validity of a food frequency questionnaire for carotenoid intakes in men, suggesting implications for dietary assessments.
More research is needed to clarify the health effects of dietary carotenoid intakes, and this requires the use of high-quality assessments of habitual dietary intake. Cohort studies from the Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization included a self-administered food frequency questionnaire (TMM-FFQ) for community-dwelling adults. This study evaluated the validity of carotenoid intakes derived from the TMM-FFQ using serum carotenoid concentrations as the gold standard. In Miyagi Prefecture, 88 men and 124 women aged ≥20 years voluntarily agreed to participate in the study and provided completed TMM-FFQs and blood samples in 2019 and 2021. Carotenoids examined included α-carotene, β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, and lycopene. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess correlations between serum concentrations in 2019 and 2021. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the correlations between energy-adjusted dietary carotenoid intakes from the TMM-FFQ in 2021 and the average serum carotenoid concentrations in 2019 and 2021, with correction for the attenuating effect of random within-individual variation. The ICCs between serum concentrations over the 2 years were >0.50 for all carotenoids. Among men, correlation coefficients were 0.33 for α-carotene, 0.42 for β-carotene, 0.50 for β-cryptoxanthin, and -0.09 for lycopene. Among women, the coefficients were lower than those for men, except for lycopene: 0.11 for α-carotene, 0.23 for β-carotene, 0.21 for β-cryptoxanthin, and 0.28 for lycopene. The TMM-FFQ demonstrated reasonable validity for assessing intakes of α-carotene, β-carotene, and β-cryptoxanthin among men, but not among women, in the TMM cohort studies when using serum concentrations as the gold standard.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murakami et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: