MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 10453: Fat, Fibre, Sodium Score -A Quick And Valid Tool to Measure Eating Behavior Change Patterns in Cardiac Prevention & Rehabilitation Programs

2015· article· en· W2728451505 on OpenAlexaff
Wanda Firth, Bernice Pancura, Maureen Tilley, Nicholas Giacomantonio

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnthropometryRehabilitationPhysical therapyEating behaviorGerontologyInternal medicineObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The history of nutrition scoring tools and food frequency evaluations is plagued with errors and limitations. However, there remains a need to capture outcomes for eating patterns and nutrition behavior change. Our past work led to development of a valid eating stage scoring tool but it was labor intensive and not practical for many clinic or program settings so we developed a new scoring tool. Hypothesis: The new Fat, Fibre, Sodium score is a quickly applied tool to accurately represent eating behavior and effectively measure nutrition changes, during and post cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. Methods: Patients attending a community CR program, participated in an intensive nutrition behavior change intervention with a dietitian. Nutrition evaluation was conducted using three methods; a general Food Score, the new self evaluation tool called the Fat Fibre Sodium score (FFSS) and thirdly,the dietitian's nutrition assessment and evaluation. Patients also had biomedical measures, exercise stress testing and anthropometrics at baseline and 3 month program completion. Results: In the General Food Score,patients went from meeting 79% to 84% of healthy eating guidelines(p<0.0001). 390 patients completed the new FFSS and had improvements for each category; Fat, Fibre and Sodium (p<0.0001). Fibre intake increased from 19 g/day to 27g day. The FFSS for Fibre was validated, and every 8 out of 10 patients had self-scores with 100% accuracy when compared to the dietitian evaluation (p<0.001) The FFSS Fat scores went from 'moderate' to 'low' intake and while the dietitian's assessment validated the fat score at program completion, the baseline FFSS was underreported for fat intake. The sodium component of the FFSS was not valid. Impact of nutrition changes showed that a FFSS 'low fat' score at program completion led to statistically significant weight changes , and LDL lowering (p<0.001)even while changes in exercise were held constant. Conclusions: The FFSS tool is easy to use and is a valid measure of eating behavior changes with fibre intake and also accurately represents dietary fat intake at program completion. Although work needs to continue on the sodium component of the FFSS, the new Fat Fibre Scoring tool can be used with confidence in CR settings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→