Errors in assessment models may have devastating impacts on the population fitness and negative impacts on the economy of the resource users.
We believe the potential observation errors in assessment of these indices may result in poor reliability of the values and questionable clinical validity.
This observed difference in effect may suggest inaccuracies in the measured dietary values, perhaps owing to measurement errors in assessment of intake, errors in food composition tables or the lack of information on intake from dietary supplements.
Potential sources of errors in assessment of diet in observational studies results from (i) inaccurate diet assessment, (ii) the fact that changes in diet occur over time, while diet assessment is usually only assessed once and (iii) co-variation in diet with other CRC risk factors.
Third, measurement error in assessments of rice consumption is inevitable, and we have incomplete knowledge of the extent to which such error may bias our results.
The C.I.A. objected, as the current director, John Brennan, said last week, to "factual errors" and "errors in judgment or assessments".
However, they often do not agree, and it is critical to be aware of the limitations and pitfalls in these methods that might lead to a contradiction and an error in assessment.
Overall, measurement error in assessment of dietary cadmium would be nondifferential in this prospective cohort study and could have introduced substantial bias toward a finding of no association (Freedman et al. 2011; Kipnis et al. 2003).
Measurement error in assessment of alcoholic beverage intake could attenuate or de-attenuate the association, but the consistent significant inverse associations by different study design, specific types of alcoholic beverage, and gender may not support the possibility that measurement error fully explained our findings in this meta-analysis.
While this change from six to four response options might intuitively lower the ability to capture functional changes in a patient, from the current evidence, however, keeping the six responses will give a false sense of precision and potentially increase the error in assessment, which may lead to a false sense of clinically meaningful improvement when it may not exist.
