The e-EPIDEMIOLOGY Mobile Phone App for Dietary Intake Assessment: Comparison with a Food Frequency Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a great necessity for new methods of evaluation of dietary intake that overcome the limitations of traditional self-reporting methods. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a new method, based on an app for mobile phones called e-EPIDEMIOLOGY, which was designed to collect individual consumption data for a series of foods/drinks, and to compare this app with a previously validated paper food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). METHODS: University students >18 years of age recorded the consumption of certain foods/drinks using e-EPIDEMIOLOGY during 28 consecutive days and then filled out a paper FFQ at the end of the study period. To evaluate the agreement between the categories of habitual consumption for each of the foods/drinks included in the study, cross-classification analysis and a weighted kappa statistic were used. RESULTS: A total of 119 participants completed the study (71% female, 85/119; 29% male, 34/119). Cross-classification analysis showed that 79.8% of the participants were correctly classified into the same category and just 1.1% were misclassified into opposite categories. The average weighted kappa statistic was good (κ=.64). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that e-EPIDEMIOLOGY generated ranks of dietary intakes that were highly comparable with the previously validated paper FFQ. However, it was noted that further testing of e-EPIDEMIOLOGY is required to establish its wider utility.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".