Validation of the NANA (Novel Assessment of Nutrition and Ageing) touch screen system for use at home by older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prospective measurement of nutrition, cognition, and physical activity in later life would facilitate early detection of detrimental change and early intervention but is hard to achieve in community settings. Technology can simplify the task and facilitate daily data collection. The Novel Assessment of Nutrition and Ageing (NANA) toolkit was developed to provide a holistic picture of an individual's function including diet, cognition and activity levels. This study aimed to validate the NANA toolkit for data collection in the community. Forty participants aged 65 years and over trialled the NANA toolkit in their homes for three 7-day periods at four-week intervals. Data collected using the NANA toolkit were compared with standard measures of diet (four-day food diary), cognitive ability (processing speed) and physical activity (self-report). Bland-Altman analysis of dietary intake (energy, carbohydrates, protein fat) found a good relationship with the food diary and cognitive processing speed and physical activity (hours) were significantly correlated with their standard counterparts. The NANA toolkit enables daily reporting of data that would otherwise be collected sporadically while reducing demands on participants; older adults can complete the daily reporting at home without a researcher being present; and it enables prospective investigation of several domains at once.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".