Relative validity and reproducibility of a quantitative FFQ for assessing nutrient intakes of vegetarians in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative validity and reproducibility of the quantitative FFQ used in the Tzu Chi Health Study (TCHS). DESIGN: The reproducibility was evaluated by comparing the baseline FFQ with the 2-year follow-up FFQ. The validity was evaluated by comparing the baseline FFQ with 3 d dietary records and biomarkers (serum folate and vitamin B12). Median comparison, cross-classification and Spearman correlation with and without energy adjustment and deattenuation for day-to-day variation were assessed. SETTING: TCHS is a prospective cohort containing a high proportion of true vegetarians and part-time vegetarians (regularly consuming a vegetarian diet without completely avoiding meat). SUBJECT: Subsets of 103, seventy-eight and 1528 TCHS participants were included in the reproducibility, dietary record-validity and biomarker-validity studies, respectively. RESULTS: Correlations assessing the reproducibility for repeat administrations of the FFQ were in the range of 0·46-0·65 for macronutrients and 0·35-0·67 for micronutrients; the average same quartile agreement was 40%. The correlation between FFQ and biomarkers was 0·41 for both vitamin B12 and folate. Moderate to good correlations between the baseline FFQ and dietary records were found for energy, protein, carbohydrate, saturated and monounsaturated fat, fibre, vitamin C, vitamin A, K, Ca, Mg, P, Fe and Zn (average crude correlation: 0·47 (range: 0·37-0·66); average energy-adjusted correlation: 0·43 (range: 0·38-0·55); average energy-adjusted deattenuated correlation: 0·50 (range: 0·44-0·66)) with same quartile agreement rate of 39% (range: 35-45%), while misclassification to the extreme quartile was rare (average: 4% (range: 0-6%)). CONCLUSIONS: The FFQ is a reliable and valid tool to rank relative intake of major nutrients for TCHS participants.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".