MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084001080 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10052

Bayesian hierarchical models for food frequency assessment

2010· article· en· W2084001080 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Hae‐Ryoung Song, Andrew Lawson, Daniela Nitcheva

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityBayesian hierarchical modelingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBayesian inferenceEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this study is to assess the biases of a Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) by comparing total energy intake (TEI) with total energy expenditure (TEE) obtained from doubly labelled water(DLW) biomarker after adjusting measurement errors in DLW. We develop several Bayesian hierarchical measurement error models of DLW with different distributional assumptions on TEI to obtain precise bias estimates of TEI. Inference is carried out by using MCMC simulation techniques in a fully Bayesian framework, and model comparisons are done via the mean square predictive error. Our results showed that the joint model with random effects under the Gamma distribution is the best fit model in terms of the MSPE and residual diagnostics, in which bias in TEI is not significant based on the 95% credible interval. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 506–516; 2010 © 2010 Statistical Society of Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207