Adjustment for energy intake in nutritional research: a causal inference perspective - Tomova, Georgia D; Arnold, Kellyn F; Gilthorpe, Mark S; Tennant, Peter WG (medRxiv, 2021)
Background Four models are commonly used to adjust for energy intake when estimating the causal effect of a dietary component on an outcome; (1) the ‘standard model’ adjusts for total energy intake, (2) the ‘energy partition model’ adjusts for remaining energy intake, (3) the ‘nutrient density model’ rescales the exposure as a proportion of total energy, and (4) the ‘residual model’ indirectly adjusts for total energy by using a residual. It remains underappreciated that each approach evaluates a different estimand and only partially accounts for proxy confounding by common dietary causes.Objective To clarify the implied causal estimand and interpretation of each model and evaluate their performance in reducing dietary confounding.Design Semi-parametric directed acyclic graphs and Monte Carlo simulations were used to identify the estimands and interpretations implied by each model and explore their performance in the absence or presence of dietary confounding.Results The ‘standard model’ and the mathematically identical ‘residual model’ estimate the average relative causal effect (i.e., a ‘substitution’ effect) but provide biased estimates even in the absence of confounding. The ‘energy partition model’ estimates the total causal effect but only provides unbiased estimates in the absence of confounding or when all other nutrients have equal effects on the outcome. The ‘nutrient density model’ has an obscure interpretation but attempts to estimate the average relative causal effect rescaled as a proportion of total energy intake. Accurate estimates of both the total and average relative causal effects may instead be estimated by simultaneously adjusting for all dietary components, an approach we term the ‘all-components model’.Conclusion Lack of awareness of the estimand differences and accuracy of the four modelling approaches may explain some of the apparent heterogeneity among existing nutritional studies and raise serious questions regarding the validity of meta-analyses where different estimands have been inappropriately pooled.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study received no specific funding. GDT is grateful for PhD funding from The Alan Turing Institute (EP/N510129/1). KFA, MSG and PWGT are all supported by The Alan Turing Institute (EP/N510129/1).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicable. All data analysed and reported in this manuscript were simulated.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData described in the manuscript, code book, and analytic code will be made publicly and freely available without restriction at: https://github.com/georgiatomova/adjustment-energy-intake https://github.com/georgiatomova/adjustment-energy-intake