Relative validity of an FFQ to estimate daily food and nutrient intakes for Chilean adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: FFQ are commonly used to rank individuals by their food and nutrient intakes in large epidemiological studies. The purpose of the present study was to develop and validate an FFQ to rank individuals participating in an ongoing Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study in Chile. DESIGN: An FFQ and four 24 h dietary recalls were completed over 1 year. Pearson correlation coefficients, energy-adjusted and de-attenuated correlations and weighted kappa were computed between the dietary recalls and the FFQ. The level of agreement between the two dietary assessment methods was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis. SETTING: Temuco, Chile. SUBJECTS: Overall, 166 women and men enrolled in the present study. One hundred men and women participated in FFQ development and sixty-six individuals participated in FFQ validation. RESULTS: The FFQ consisted of 109 food items. For nutrients, the crude correlation coefficients between the dietary recalls and FFQ varied from 0.14 (protein) to 0.44 (fat). Energy adjustment and de-attenuation improved correlation coefficients and almost all correlation coefficients exceeded 0.40. Similar correlation coefficients were observed for food groups; the highest de-attenuated energy adjusted correlation coefficient was found for margarine and butter (0.75) and the lowest for potatoes (0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The FFQ showed moderate to high agreement for most nutrients and food groups, and can be used to rank individuals based on energy, nutrient and food intakes. The validation study was conducted in a unique setting and indicated that the tool is valid for use by adults in Chile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".