↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Australian Recommended Food Score (ARFS) and Plasma Carotenoid Concentrations: A Validation Study in Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrients, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Australian Recommended Food Score (ARFS) and Plasma Carotenoid Concentrations: A Validation Study in Adults
Published in
Nutrients, August 2017
DOI 10.3390/nu9080888
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee Ashton, Rebecca Williams, Lisa Wood, Tracy Schumacher, Tracy Burrows, Megan Rollo, Kristine Pezdirc, Robin Callister, Clare Collins

Abstract

Diet quality indices can predict nutritional adequacy of usual intake, but validity should be determined. The aim was to assess the validity of total and sub-scale score within the Australian Recommended Food Score (ARFS), in relation to fasting plasma carotenoid concentrations. Diet quality and fasting plasma carotenoid concentrations were assessed in 99 overweight and obese adults (49.5% female, aged 44.6 ± 9.9 years) at baseline and after three months (198 paired observations). Associations were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficients and regression analysis, and agreement using weighted kappa (Kw). Small, significantly positive correlations were found between total ARFS and plasma concentrations of total carotenoids (r = 0.17, p < 0.05), β-cryptoxanthin (r = 0.18, p < 0.05), β-carotene (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), and α-carotene (r = 0.19, p < 0.01). Significant agreement between ARFS categories and plasma carotenoid concentrations was found for total carotenoids (Kw 0.12, p = 0.02), β-carotene (Kw 0.14, p < 0.01), and α-carotene (Kw 0.13, p < 0.01). In fully-adjusted regression models the only signification association with ARFS total score was for α-carotene (β = 0.19, p < 0.01), while ARFS meat and fruit sub-scales demonstrated significant relationships with α-carotene, β-carotene, and total carotenoids (p < 0.05). The weak associations highlight the issues with self-reporting dietary intakes in overweight and obese populations. Further research is required to evaluate the use of the ARFS in more diverse populations.

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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 31%
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 18 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,567,744
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Nutrients
#14,647
of 17,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,370
of 318,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrients
#286
of 330 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 318,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 330 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.