Assessing Dietary Outcomes in Intervention Studies: Pitfalls, Strategies, and Research Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To inform strategies to improve the dietary intakes of populations, robust evaluations of interventions are required. This paper is drawn from a workshop held at the International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2017 Annual Meeting, and highlights considerations and research priorities relevant to measuring dietary outcomes within intervention studies. Self-reported dietary data are typically relied upon in such studies, and it is recognized that these data are affected by random and systematic error. Additionally, differential error between intervention and comparison groups or pre- and post-intervention can be elicited by the intervention itself, for example, by creating greater awareness of eating or drinking occasions or the desire to appear compliant. Differential reporting can render the results of trials incorrect or inconclusive by leading to biased estimates and reduced statistical power. The development of strategies to address intervention-related biases requires developing a better understanding of the situations and population groups in which interventions are likely to elicit differential reporting and the extent of the bias. Also needed are efforts to expand the feasibility and applications of biomarkers to address intervention-related biases. In the meantime, researchers are encouraged to consider the potential for differential biases in dietary reporting in a given study, to choose tools carefully and take steps to minimize and/or measure factors such as social desirability biases that might contribute to differential reporting, and to consider the implications of differential reporting for study results.
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 | 0.823 | 0.874 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".