↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of principal component analysis, partial least-squares and reduced-rank regressions in the identification of dietary patterns associated with bone mass in ageing Australians

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nutrition, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of principal component analysis, partial least-squares and reduced-rank regressions in the identification of dietary patterns associated with bone mass in ageing Australians
Published in
European Journal of Nutrition, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00394-017-1478-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yohannes Adama Melaku, Tiffany K. Gill, Anne W. Taylor, Robert Adams, Zumin Shi

Abstract

The relative advantages of dietary analysis methods, particularly in identifying dietary patterns associated with bone mass, have not been investigated. We evaluated principal component analysis (PCA), partial least-squares (PLS) and reduced-rank regressions (RRR) in determining dietary patterns associated with bone mass. Data from 1182 study participants (45.9% males; aged 50 years and above) from the North West Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS) were used. Dietary data were collected using a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Dietary patterns were constructed using PCA, PLS and RRR and compared based on the performance to identify plausible patterns associated with bone mineral density (BMD) and content (BMC). PCA, PLS and RRR identified two, four and four dietary patterns, respectively. All methods identified similar patterns for the first two factors (factor 1, "prudent" and factor 2, "western" patterns). Three, one and none of the patterns derived by RRR, PLS and PCA were significantly associated with bone mass, respectively. The "prudent" and dairy (factor 3) patterns determined by RRR were positively and significantly associated with BMD and BMC. Vegetables and fruit pattern (factor 4) of PLS and RRR was negatively and significantly associated with BMD and BMC, respectively. RRR was found to be more appropriate in identifying more (plausible) dietary patterns that are associated with bone mass than PCA and PLS. Nevertheless, the advantage of RRR over the other two methods (PCA and PLS) should be confirmed in future studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Lecturer 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 17 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Mathematics 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,465,171
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#1,728
of 2,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,254
of 317,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#29
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,402 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.