Daily calcium intake in male children and adolescents obtained from the rapid assessment method and the 24-hour recall method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to rapidly assess nutrient intake, Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQ) have been developed and proven to be reliable for quick, user friendly analysis in adults. However, the accuracy of these questionnaires in children has been studied to a limited extent. The aim of this study was to compare the daily calcium intake values obtained from the Rapid Assessment Method (RAM), an FFQ, for assessing daily calcium intake in child and adolescent males with the values obtained from the 24-hour recall method. METHODS: Subjects included 162 child and adolescent males, aged 9-16 years, subdivided into elementary school (ES, 9-12 years) and high school (HS, 14-16 years) age groups. RESULTS: Daily calcium intake was significantly lower in ES compared with HS, using both methods. The intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) between RAM values and those obtained using the 24-hour recall questionnaire were significant yet moderate (ICC = 0.46 and 0.43 for ES and HS, respectively). However, daily calcium intake obtained using RAM was significantly higher when compared with the 24-hour recall values in both ES (1576 +/- 1101 vs. 1003 +/- 543 mg, in RAM and 24-hour, respectively) and in HS males (1873 +/- 739 vs. 1159 +/- 515 mg, in RAM and 24-hour, respectively). CONCLUSION: RAM overestimates daily calcium intake as compared with the 24-hour recall method in both child and adolescent males.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".