Validity and reproducibility of an interviewer-administered food frequency questionnaire for healthy French-Canadian men and women
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity (study 1) and the reproducibility (study 2) of an interviewer-administered food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). METHOD: The FFQ was designed at Laval University and contains 91 items and 33 subquestions. STUDY 1: The FFQ was compared against a 3-day food record (2 week-days and 1 weekend-day), at week 0, 6 and 12 of a nutritional intervention. STUDY 2: In order to evaluate the reproducibility of the FFQ, 2 registered dietitians administered the FFQ 4-weeks apart among subjects who were not part of the nutritional intervention. RESULTS: STUDY 1: Mean values for intake of most nutrients assessed by the FFQ and by the 3-day food record were not statistically different. Energy-adjusted correlation coefficients for major macronutrients ranged from 0.36 for proteins to 0.60 for carbohydrates (p < or = 0.01). Agreement analysis revealed that on average, 35% of the subjects were classified in the same quartile when nutrients were assessed by either the 3-day food record or the FFQ. STUDY 2: Significant associations were observed between dietary measurements derived from the two FFQs administered 4 weeks apart. Correlation coefficients for the reproducibility of macronutrients ranged from 0.66 for carbohydrates to 0.83 for lipids after energy adjustment. On average, 46% of the subjects were classified in the same quartile when nutrient intakes were assessed by either FFQ. CONCLUSION: These data indicated that the FFQ developed has a good validity and is reproducible.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it