Table 3.
The correlations between urinary sugars and dietary sugars by DR or FFQ (n = 72, Cohort I).
| Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude 1 | Adjusted 2 | De-Attenuated 3 | ||||
| r | 95%CI | r | 95%CI | r | 95%CI | |
| FFQv vs. urine 4 | 0.25 | (0.02, 0.45) | 0.27 | (0.04, 0.47) | 0.40 | (0.19, 0.58) |
| 14-d DR 5 vs. urine 4 | 0.46 | (0.25, 0.62) | 0.48 | (0.28, 0.64) | 0.89 | (0.82, 0.93) |
| 7-d DR vs. urine (spring) | 0.31 | (0.08, 0.50) | 0.24 | (0.01, 0.44) | 0.27 | (0.04, 0.47) |
| 7-d DR vs. urine (fall) | 0.38 | (0.16, 0.56) | 0.41 | (0.19, 0.58) | 0.46 | (0.26, 0.62) |
DR, dietary record; FFQv, food frequency questionnaire for validity; r, correlation coefficient; CI, confidence interval. The σ2ws/σ2bs ratios: 5.62 and intra-class correlation (ICC): 0.15 for urinary sugars. 1 DR or FFQv (crude) vs. urinary sugars (crude). 2 DR or FFQv (energy-adjusted by nutritional density method (percentage of energy)) vs. urinary sugars (creatinine-adjusted). 3 Adjusted Spearman’s correlation coefficients were multiplied using probit transformation with regard to repeats of urinary sugar measures (twice) for FFQv vs. urine, repeats of both urinary sugar measures (twice) and DR measures (14 times) for 14-d DR vs. urine, and repeats of DR measures (7 times) for 7-d DR vs. urine. 4 Urinary sugar was calculated as the mean of the spring and fall values. 5 Dietary sugars from DR were calculated as the mean of the spring and fall values (the same seasons as when the urine was collected).