A Food Frequency Questionnaire for the Assessment of Calcium, Vitamin D and Vitamin K: A Pilot Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective was to validate a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to assess calcium, vitamin D and vitamin K intakes in overweight and obese postmenopausal community-dwelling women. The FFQ was validated against intakes derived from a 5-day diet record (5DDR) that also included assessment of supplement intake. Strong correlations between methods were observed for all nutrients (r = 0.63, 0.89, 0.54 for calcium, vitamin D and vitamin K, respectively) and cross-classification analyses demonstrated no major misclassification of participants into intake quartiles. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the FFQ overestimated intakes for calcium, by 576 mg/day (95% CI, -668 to 1,821 mg/day), for vitamin D by 75 IU/day (95% CI, -359 to 510 IU/day), and for vitamin K by 167 mcg/day (95% CI, -233 to 568 mcg/day). This pilot study showed promising validation evidence for the use of this FFQ, which focuses on calcium, vitamin D and vitamin K intakes in postmenopausal women, as a screening tool in clinical and research settings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".