Validation of a quantitative FFQ for the Barbados National Cancer Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of a 148-item quantitative FFQ (QFFQ) that was developed for the Barbados National Cancer Study (BNCS) to determine dietary intake over 12 months and examine the dietary risk factors. DESIGN: A cross-sectional validation study of the QFFQ against 4 d food diaries. Spearman's rank correlations (ρ), intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted κ were computed as measures of concordance, adjusting for daily variations in the food diaries. Cross-classification tables and Bland-Altman plots were created for further assessment. SETTING: BNCS is a case-control study of environmental risk factors for breast and prostate cancer in a predominantly African-origin population in Barbados. SUBJECTS: Fifty-four individuals (21 years and older) were recruited among controls in the BNCS who were frequency-matched on sex and age group to breast and prostate cancer cases. RESULTS: Similar mean daily energy intake was derived from the food diary (8201 kJ (1960 kcal)) and QFFQ (7774 kJ (1858 kcal)). Rho for energy and macronutrients ranged from 0·66 (energy) to 0·17 (dietary fibre). The percentage of energy from carbohydrates and protein showed the highest and lowest ICC among macronutrients (0·63 and 0·27, respectively). The highest weighted κ was observed for energy (0·45). When the nutrient intake was divided into quartiles, approximately 34 % of the observations were in the same quartile. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation supports the validity of the QFFQ as a method for assessing long-term dietary intake except for dietary fibre, folate, vitamins A, E and B12. The instrument will be a useful tool in the analysis of diet-cancer associations in the BNCS.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".