Relative validity of a dietary interview for assessing infant diet and compliance in a dietary intervention trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the relative validity of a dietary interview method for use in an infant population. A dietary interview covering a 1-month period was completed during a study visit at 3 or 6 months of age. It included structured questions and a short food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The information was compared with data from two 48-h recall interviews conducted during the month previous to the study visit. The agreement between the FFQ and 48-h recalls was analysed as proportion of subjects classified into the same categories of consumption frequency and by the kappa analysis. A total of 100 subjects, at the age of 2-3 months (n = 50) and 5-6 months (n = 50), were included. The kappa values for breastmilk and study formula ranged from 0.82 to 0.95, indicating very good agreement. The agreement for other foods and vitamin D supplementation ranged from fair to very good. We also found a strong correlation for the reported amount of study formula consumed per feeding at 3 months (r(s) = 0.87, n = 24) and 6 months of age (r(s) = 0.73, n = 35) between the questionnaire and 48-h recall data. However, the average amount of study formula per feeding was significantly higher when estimated for a 1-month period, compared with a mean calculated from the two 48-h recalls. As a conclusion, the interview was found to be a useful tool for assessing diet and compliance in a dietary intervention for infants.
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 | 0.319 | 0.464 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".