ReviewCritical reviews in food science and nutrition2026
"Shaking the ladder" reveals how analytic choices can influence associations in nutrition epidemiology: beef intake and coronary heart disease as a case study.
Review in Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nutrition epidemiological models involve many analytic decisions, such as defining exposures, selecting which covariates to include, or configuring variables in different ways. We explored the impact of analytical decisions on conclusions in nutrition epidemiology using self-reported beef intake and incident coronary heart disease as a case study. We used REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) data, and selected covariates and their configurations from published literature to recapitulate common models used to assess associations between meat intake and health outcomes. Three model sets were designed: sets one and two used continuous and quintile-defined beef intakes, respectively, each with ∼500,000 randomly sampled specifications. Set three models directly emulated published covariate combinations. Few models (<1%) were statistically significant at
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.