MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057774151 · doi:10.1002/eat.22021

Validity of the night eating questionnaire in children

2012· article· en· W2057774151 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annette Gallant, Jennifer D. Lundgren, Kelly C. Allison, Albert J. Stunkard, Marie Lambert, Jennifer O’Loughlin, Simone Lemieux, Angelo Tremblay, Vicky Drapeau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEveningMorningRecallPsychologyCohortHealthy eatingDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePhysical activityInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To measure the construct validity of the Night Eating Questionnaire (NEQ) in children against a parent report of child night eating syndrome (NES) symptoms (NEQ report) and a 3-day dietary recall. METHOD: NEQ of 304 children from the QUALITY (QUébec Adipose and Lifestyle InvesTigation in Youth) cohort were compared to a parent report and 3-day dietary recall. RESULTS: Child NEQ scores were related to the parent NEQ report (ρ = 0.30 p < 0.0001) yet there were inconsistencies between responses concerning sleep troubles. Total child NEQ scores, but not parent NEQ report scores, were associated with dietary manifestations of NES such as increased evening (ρ = 0.20, p < .001) and reduced morning intake (ρ= -0.12, p < .05). DISCUSSION: The NEQ score is related to eating patterns of NES in children and is more informative than a parent report, specifically when used in conjunction with dietary recall.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207